We Kid You Not Childfree Forums

Full Version: World's oldest mother dies of cancer just three years after giving birth to twin boys
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnew...l?ITO=1490

World's oldest mother dies of cancer just three years after giving birth to twin boys

By Tom Worden
Last updated at 3:18 PM on 15th July 2009

A pensioner who had twins at the age of 66 has died before her sons have reached their third birthday.

Maria del Carmen Bousada became the world's oldest mother when she gave birth to Christian and Pau in 2006.

But within months of having her boys, the former shop worker - who does not have a partner - was diagnosed with cancer.

She died on Saturday, leaving her twins orphans. It is unclear who will care for her children.
Maria Bousada

Controversial: Maria Bousada gave birth to twins Pau and Christian after undergoing IVF

Miss Bousada's brother Ricardo said the family had already buried his sister.

He said: 'The twins are doing brilliantly. They are very well

'I'm not going to discuss who will be looking after the boys.'

Miss Bousada, from Cadiz, Spain, decided she wanted children after her mother Eugenia, who she cared for in her old age, died aged 101 in 2005.

She first consulted doctors at a private clinic in Spain but was told she was too old for IVF treatment.

There is no legal age limit on artificial insemination in Spain but clinics generally refuse to take on women aged more than 50 who are at far greater risk of heart problems and illnesses like diabetes.

Undeterred by the doctors warnings, Miss Bousada sold a flat for £40,000 and travelled to the United States to a private fertility clinic.

At this point she claimed to be 55 in case doctors at the Pacific Fertility Center in Los Angeles also refused to treat her because of her age.

Miss Bousada, whose last relationship with a man occurred some ten years previously, bought donor eggs and sperm from a catalogue for £20,000.

She chose an egg from an 18-year-old brunette and sperm from a blond-haired, blue-eyed Italian-American.

The treatment was a success and Miss Bousada gave birth by Caesarian in 2006, just a few days short of her 67th birthday.

Her pregnancy was condemned by campaign groups and even by her own family who said she was 'selfish and irresponsible' for having children so late in life.

But Miss Bousada defended herself, claiming she had always wanted to be a mother but had not had the opportunity.

'My mother lived to 101 and I have every reason to believe longevity runs in my family,' she said, shortly after having her twins. She claimed to feel healthier than ever.

However, within a year of having her boys she was diagnosed with cancer. There was some suggestion that fertility drugs used during her treatment had helped the disease spread.

Record-breaking: Omkari Panwar was 70 when she gave birth last year, overtaking Miss Bousada as the world's oldest mother

Miss Bousada had gone through the menopause 18 years before giving birth to her twin boys.

She had never been married and lived in a two-bedroom flat above a supermarket.

Neighbours said she rarely ventured out and spent most of her time inside with her children.

As her twins approached their first birthday, Miss Boursada gave an interview to a Spanish television show and admitted she had been diagnosed with a 'very serious illness'.

She said at the time: 'The little ones are beautiful, very chubby, very big.

'At the moment I am still here. I have my family, the two children have their godfather.

'I have a girl who helps me look after the children. I am always there for them. I always have help.

'I'm not thinking about fear in my life at the moment but of course you never know.

'I am well at the moment but you never know how things will work out. I have always been healthy and never had problems.'

Asked if she had any regrets over her decision to have children, she replied: 'No, not at all, not at all. No.

'Yes, I think about myself, but the children I was lacking, they have a family.'

And asked who will look after the children if she dies, she replied: 'I have a nephew, I have their godfather who is very good with the children.

'They are not going to be alone. But come on, I'm not thinking at the moment that I'm going to...

'The love that these children receive, very few children get that amount of love. That's the truth.'
Defying nature: Looking younger than her 66 years, Elizabeth Munro with her newborn son

Defying nature: Elizabeth Munro became Britain's oldest mother after having her son at the age of 66 in May

When news of the birth broke, experts widely condemned Miss Bousada's actions.

Rafael Bernabeu, president of the National Association of Assisted Reproduction Clinics, (ANACER) described the birth as 'outside of all logic.

'It is illogical not only because of the risk to the mother but also because the children will inevitably lose there mother at a young age.

'Those children will become orphans during their adolescence.'

And the doctor who carried out her treatment in the US criticised her for lying about her age.

Dr Vicken Sahakian claimed Spaniard Carmela Bousada had falsified records showing she was 55 to get IVF treatment at his Los Angeles clinic.

He said: 'I feel duped and taken advantage of. It could have had a bad ending. She could have died, the babies could have died.'

Since Miss Bousada gave birth, even older women have become mothers.

The oldest mother in the world is believed to be Indian Omkari Panwar, who had a twins - a boy and a girl - last year at the age of 70.

In May, Elizabeth Munro, from Suffolk became Britain's oldest mother when she gave birth to a son at the age of 66.

PrairieGirl

Wow. Not surprised.
The shame is that it is the two little ones that are suffering for the woman's choice to have babies for her own selfish reasons.
Awesome (not). Two more orphans. Just what the world needs. I'll be willing to bet those kids will grow up with issues since mom is dead, especially when they find out their daddy is a test tube.
At least the kids will be spared of the task of having to care for their mother 24/7 and changing her diapers when they're teenagers, and have the chance of a normal childhood.
Ack! I just came here to post this but it's already here.
Yeah I saw this in the news today. I'm not a fan of those fertility drugs at all. They have all kinds of nasty side effects. Why this woman did not choose to foster a child is beyond me.
She sure did spend a lot of money creating 2 kids for the world to raise.
Seems like she was going through a bit of a midlife crisis.
Lindsay Wrote:Seems like she was going through a bit of a midlife crisis.

LOL more like an "end of life crisis".
jeaniemarie Wrote:Why this woman did not choose to foster a child is beyond me.

Because that would have been the logical thing to do. We all know that when someone gets baby rabies all logic out the window.
How sad. Why on earth someone would want a baby when they are in their 60s is beyond me. Dog Holliday - you hit the nail on the head. I guess she wanted someone to take care of her. And they call US selfish? I don't think so!
Not to say that a woman in her 20s or 30s can't die of cancer three years after giving birth, but seriously, these old women who chose to have kids, aren't they thinking about their kids' welfare?

These women who have to have a child of their own no matter the consequences irritate me. If it isn't the woman who's taking fertility drugs to pop out 8 kids (some of which wind up with developmental disabilities and a myriad of other problems), it's these older women who try to defy nature by having children their bodies cannot handle.

I'm not saying the kids caused her cancer. I'm saying that when she developed a bad case of the baby rabies, did she ask herself: am I too old to physically have a child? Will I be around long enough to raise my kids and be there for them? What is in their best interest? No, it's all about ME ME ME.

And they call US selfish...

PrairieGirl

Water Lily -- well, I think, depending on the type of cancer, the kids just "might" cause cancer! Breast and ovarian cancer feed on estrogen, and when you take fertility drugs AND when you are pregnant (naturally or not), your body is exposed to more estrogen. It's one reason why if you are pregnant and discover you have cancer, they ask you to terminate the pregnancy (not just because chemo can damage/kill the fetus, but because estrogen feeds some cancers).

She was 66 years old. She should have been living with less estrogen (that is, past menopause). If she died of one of the cancers that feeds on estrogen, you can practically guarantee that the estrogen from the fertility drugs and/or the pregnancy fed some tiny cancer cell she may have had, and turned it into a life-killer.

She could have lived a longer life, had she not had children -- again, IF her cancer is one that feeds on estrogen.
I know of a young woman who had breast cancer soon after giving birth and she was told that it was likely triggered by the pregnancy. She had no regrets (it's a bit hard in hindsight) as she's young and 15 years later she's still very healthy, but it's something to consider.

I don't care about a person's age when they have a child (I know of a 45 year old who had a baby a decade ago) PROVIDED that it is naturally done. I don't get it... if nature is telling you that it isn't a good idea then why push it?

(I feel that sperm donations are okay as both parents can still be heatlhy within that, and this same practice has been happening for millenia with women going outside of their primary relationship to seek 'help' from medicine men and so forth)
I saw on the news this morning that she lied and told the doctor she was in her 50s. First of all, who would look at her and believe that? Her face was very wrinkled, even for someone in her 60s. Second of all, is mid-50s any better? It's still too old to have a baby!

In the news story, they said that the woman's mother had lived to be 100, so she thought she would also live that long. Oh well! I guess she took after her father. Demonchild
This woman is a loon. Said it then and I say it again: a loon. I hope her kids don't remember her at all.
Prairie Girl...

I agree with you about the hormones messing up a woman's body and being a possible cause for her cancer. When you mess that much with mother nature, something bad is bound to happen.

Ziggy...

I remember a biology professor of mine stating that childless women often die of breast cancer. He said that if you look at the statistics of Catholic nuns, that is often what they die from. But you made a good point about the pregnant woman. What about all the cancers that are caused by the hormones of pregnancy? It seems in our babycentric society, no one wants to address that. They all want to talk about what birth control and not having kids does to you, but not about all of the things that a child can.
Water Lily,

I don't trust stats like those. What did the mothers die of? Were they more likely to die at a statistically-significant younger age of something related to child-birth or stress from being a parent? I think the likelihood of breast cancer is higher after pregnancy, so presumably this means that women are getting it then. Maybe they just aren't dying from it?

Stats like that are so screwed up... and are often mislabeled so that it looks better for a particular point of view. Who knows, they may be right about the stats but I wouldn't trust them at all unless I had access to all the cancer incidence data and the causes of death for everyone.

PrairieGirl

New studies come out every day on the subject of cancers. The latest reports I've read indicate that a woman's best protection against breast cancer is to have ONE CHILD ONLY -- having none or multiple children has the same breast cancer risk. And we are talking a very small percentage anyway, so I would never have a baby to increase my chances of not having BC!

And let's not forget that celibate women (like those nun studies) almost never get cervical cancer. Study after study has proven that to get cervical cancer, you have to have had sex with a man. (In short, men cause cervical cancer -- HA HA!..kidding...).

And so what if CF living MIGHT cause an increase in certain types of cancers? -- the fact that we don't have brats screaming for our attention while trying to undergo chemotherapy means we have less stress, and thus a leg-up on a better positive outcome.
I love the hypocrisy of the christians who say that abortion or birth control are a sin because it circumvents god's will, but fertility drugs are just fine.
Reference URL's