logo
Allowing 70-year-olds to have a baby is appalling. Why don't we ever say no anymore?

Allowing 70-year-olds to have a baby is appalling. Why don't we ever say no anymore?

Telegraph29-05-2025
Here goes. I know little ears might be listening. More saliently, I know elderly ears might be listening, too.
A British couple in their 70s have just been granted permission by the courts to become the legal parents of a 14-month-old baby boy. Not because of family breakdown, not through necessity. But because they paid a surrogate in California £151,000 to carry the embryo made from the husband's sperm and a donor egg.
Now, I also know that whatever the unfortunate, regrettable or just plain awful circumstances of its conception, once a baby is born, the slate is wiped clean and jubilation is the only possible human, humane response.
Because babies are a blessing. They represent hope, love and all that is squidgy and precious – they should never be burdened with the sins of their proverbial fathers and mothers.
But sometimes – and it would seem, more often than just sometimes – we need to speak up and say 'enough'. Speak out and shout: 'NO! No, you can't. No, you mustn't. JUST STOP!'
The court papers describe how the wealthy retired couple, referred to as Mr and Mrs K, decided to have a surrogate baby after their son 'A' died from cancer in 2020 shortly before he turned 27.
By any measure that is an out-and-out tragedy. A life-long bereavement. But how could they possibly believe that having another baby in their twilight years was the best course of action?
Did no-one advise them against it? Did they not have friends or wider family to forcefully impress upon them that effectively replacing their son with a new baby would be an act of grief-induced madness? It would seem not.
In a written judgment handed down last month in the family division of the High Court, Mrs Justice Knowles said she had made her judgment public because it raised an 'important welfare issue and offers some advice for those who may, in future, engage in a foreign or other surrogacy arrangement'.
She added that it was an 'undeniable fact' that when the child – referred to as 'B' – started primary school, Mr and Mrs K would be both aged 76. 'Put starkly, Mr and Mrs K will both be 89 years old when B reaches his majority,' Judge Knowles said.
Despite those concerns, she granted a parental order to give 'permanence and security' to the child's care arrangements 'in circumstances where no one else other than Mr and Mrs K seek to provide lifelong care for him'.
The couple, it was said, have made provisions in their will for friends of their deceased son – a couple in their early 30s – to become the child's legal guardians if they die or are unable to look after him.
So that's all right then. Or is it? It is troubling to note this is the third such case to emerge in the last year where a 'parental order' has been given to British 'intended parents' in their 60s and 70s for children born to surrogate mothers abroad. And none of that is OK.
These acts of blind selfishness are so egregiously wrong that it's hard to fathom where to start – and I speak as someone who suffered the torment of infertility for many years. Even as I struggled and invested my life's savings, I knew deep down there was a cut-off point; and it was a good two and a half decades before my 70th birthday.
Not just because any reputable clinic would have stopped treating me – although many a less scrupulous outfit beyond these shores would have stepped in. But because it would have been weird and icky and unnatural (the irony of being pumped with drugs is not lost on me) to keep going and going.
I felt – I still feel – that beyond 50 it would be wrong. For me, 45 was my limit. Just because my husband and I looked young and fit, didn't mean we were. Above all, however, it felt immoral to bring – let's be honest, engineer – a baby into the world at the point when menopause decreed my reproductive days were over.
I was lucky. I had two daughters by the age of 42. I will urge them that if they want families they should start early in case my infertility is inherited. Or in case their partner has been hit by 'spermageddon'; over the past 40 years, sperm counts worldwide have halved and sperm quality has declined 'alarmingly', with one in 20 men currently facing reduced fertility.
I would never have gone down the surrogacy route to become a mother although I know women who have and that's their business. It becomes society's business, however, when elderly couples start doing the same.
There's no legal age limit for people in the position of Mr and Mrs K. There should be – if only because, as a nation, we seem to be increasingly in the thrall of the pernicious 'you do you' hands-off mentality fostered by social media.
Blithely letting people do as they like without regard for the consequences might empower the individual, but it sure as hell disempowers the rest of us.
Time and again we fail to condemn unpalatable behaviour because a spurious and deeply juvenile notion of 'kindness' takes precedence over common sense. Activists have taken advantage – why wouldn't they?
For years our pusillanimous institutions have fallen foul of aggressive transgender ideologues demanding rights to which they were never entitled. I for one found it downright humiliating that it took the Supreme Court to assert the biological fact that trans women are not women (the clue being in the title).
Then we have doctors lambasted for doing their jobs. GPs informing patients they are obese and their health is at risk has been reframed by campaigners as 'weight-shaming'. And as that might 'cause offence' it is, of course, to be avoided. What are medics supposed to do? Send a text? Mime it?
All too often we find ourselves kowtowing to the few at the expense of the many and tolerating the intolerable. At dinner tables the length of the land, the tiresome cry from younger generations of 'you can't say that!' goes up daily.
When the grown-ups acquiesce for an easier life, that doesn't burnish our liberal credentials, it makes fools of us all.
We have a responsibility to safeguard our values. And when it comes to pensioners commissioning babies, age isn't just a number. Yes, Mr and Mrs K suffered a terrible loss, but what they desperately needed was a grief counsellor not a fertility clinic.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Keir Starmer must fight for UK drug firms
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Keir Starmer must fight for UK drug firms

Daily Mail​

time2 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Keir Starmer must fight for UK drug firms

The life sciences industry is among the brightest jewels in the British economy, generating £100billion a year and employing more than 300,000 people. At its heart is the development and manufacture of pharmaceuticals, notably by AstraZeneca, which spends vast sums on research and is worth £167billion. So, if this hugely successful company were to relocate to the US, it would be a disaster both for the London Stock Exchange and the wider economy. Worryingly, this is not out of the question. AstraZeneca already sells 40 per cent of its drugs to America and, following President Donald Trump 's tariff threat, is ramping up research and production there. While there are no immediate plans to desert the UK, chief executive Pascal Soriot is said to be 'flirting' with the idea. Mr Trump's latest demand that foreign drug companies cut prices to US customers or face penalties may be an added incentive. The Left has always been highly critical of 'Big Pharma', accusing it of profiteering on the backs of NHS patients. Under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour planned to create a state-owned drug manufacturer with the power to override the patents which enable firms to make profits from their research. Only last year, Sir Keir Starmer refused to help fund a new vaccine plant in Liverpool – while pouring public money into our ailing steel industry. This Government must understand that failing to nurture AstraZeneca, GSK and others would be a catastrophic mistake. And Sir Keir should realise that while they say they want to remain in the UK, they may yet change their mind. Car lenders off hook Banks and credit providers will have heaved a huge sigh of relief yesterday after the Supreme Court ruled they will not have to pay compensation to millions of motorists who bought cars on finance without being told the dealers were receiving commission on the loan. The Treasury was also delighted with the result. Had it gone the other way, damages could have been comparable to the PPI scandal, which destabilised the financial industry for more than a decade. The court decided that dealers did not have a duty to act solely for buyers and that commissions were not a form of bribery in the legal sense, as had been alleged. However, it was not a total exoneration. Court President Lord Reed also ruled that excessive commission payments were unfair and ordered one buyer who had been charged 25 per cent of the value of the car to be repaid with interest. This opens the way to further claims. Many brokers and dealers were paid behind-the-scenes commission by lenders to sign buyers up to car finance deals, a practice deemed 'unlawful' by the Court of Appeal in October last year - a decision that was successfully appealed by lenders at the Supreme Court The dealers and lenders have escaped their worst fears, but they do not come out well. They have certainly been guilty of sharp practices even if not illegal ones. The Competition and Markets Authority must now force them to clean up their act. OAPs feel the cold In September, Rachel Reeves promised she would 'put more money in pensioners' pockets'. What she didn't say is that she would take even more out. Research shows pensioner households are an average of £800 worse off after a year of Labour thanks to higher bills – mainly owing to the Chancellor's £40billion Budget tax raid. With more taxes coming down the track to fill Labour's ever-widening financial black hole, the cost of living is set to soar further. For all Ms Reeves' promises, the elderly are in for a bitter winter.

Monarch butterflies' mass die-off in 2024 caused by pesticide exposure
Monarch butterflies' mass die-off in 2024 caused by pesticide exposure

The Guardian

time18 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Monarch butterflies' mass die-off in 2024 caused by pesticide exposure

A 2024 mass monarch butterfly die-off in California was probably caused by pesticide exposure, new peer-reviewed research finds, adding difficult-to-obtain evidence to the theory that pesticides are partly behind dramatic declines in monarchs' numbers in recent decades. Researchers discovered hundreds of butterflies that had died or were dying in January 2024 near an overwintering site, where insects spend winter months. The butterflies were found twitching or dead in piles, which are common signs of neurotoxic pesticide poisoning, researchers wrote. Testing of 10 of the insects revealed an average of seven pesticides in each, and at levels that researchers suspect were lethal. Proving that pesticides kill butterflies in the wild is a challenge because it is difficult to find and test them soon after they die. Though the sample size is limited, the authors wrote, the findings provide 'meaningful insight' into the die-off and broader population decline. 'The incident gave us a rare opportunity to directly document pesticide exposure and its impacts on monarchs in the real world,' said Staci Cibotti, the study's lead author, and an entomologist and pesticide program specialist with the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. She added: 'Even though laboratory studies and population models have shown that pesticides are harmful to monarchs, it can be difficult to capture the impacts of pesticides in the field on wild populations. This study helps to fill that gap.' As much as 90% of the monarch butterfly population in some US regions has been wiped out in recent decades, and evidence has pointed to pesticides, climate crisis and habitat loss as the drivers. The butterflies were found adjacent to the Pacific Grove Monarch Sanctuary, one of about 400 wintering sites along California's coast that are crucial points in the monarchs' migratory and reproductive cycles. Xerces counted about 6,600 butterflies overwintering at Pacific Grove in November 2023. Though an investigation by a state agricultural official did not determine a source of the die-off, pesticide residues on crops, lawns and ornamental flowers are a poisoning risk for monarch larvae, and for adults eating nectar. Pesticide run off in shallow water sources near where high numbers of butterflies collectively drink present a risk for the type of mass die-off at Pacific Grove. All the butterflies showed high levels of the same three pyrethroids, a pesticide class widely used in California on agricultural and residential land. The residential applications are not reported, and Cibotti said the presence of the same types of pyrethroids in all the samples points to a nearby residential exposure as the source. Some of the pyrethroid levels found in the monarchs are known to be lethal, and researchers suspect the combined levels of multiple pesticides also probably contributed. Combinations of pesticides can have a synergistic effect that makes them even more toxic. The solution, Cibotti said, is less pesticides. 'These clustering events occur during especially sensitive phases of the migratory cycle, so reducing pesticide exposure during these times is essential not only to prevent immediate losses, but also to improve the population's chances of rebounding the following spring and support its long-term recovery,' Cibotti said.

Brits shouldn't be signed off work for anxiety and depression, says former Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt
Brits shouldn't be signed off work for anxiety and depression, says former Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt

Daily Mail​

time30 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Brits shouldn't be signed off work for anxiety and depression, says former Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt

Former health secretary Sir Jeremy Hunt fears society is 'over medicalising' the impact of normal traumatic events – and warned against signing people off work with anxiety and depression. The Tory grandee, who held the role between 2012 and 2018, spoke out as the Government has faced stiff opposition from its own MPs against welfare reforms. People with mental health conditions are believed to account for around half of the rise in working age adults claiming disability benefits in England and Wales since the pandemic, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The number of working-age adults in England and Wales paid disability benefits rose by nearly 1million people to 2.9million between 2019 and 2024, with 7.5 per cent of 16- to 64-year-olds claiming. In a report in March, the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculated that about 500,000 of the rise is from mental health claimants. Sir Jeremy said that 'in some ways it's rather positive' that people talk openly about mental health issues. But he said: 'I do worry we are sometimes over-medicalising it. Everyone has trauma – bereavements, sometimes losing their jobs. That is not the same as mental illness. 'I think it's immoral we are signing off 3,000 people a day saying they don't have to look for work. The Tory MP, most recently Chancellor under Rishi Sunak (pictured) and who narrowly held onto his seat by 819 votes at last year's General Election, said: Everyone has trauma – bereavements, sometimes losing their jobs. That is not the same as mental illness' 'The majority of those have anxiety and depression and the one thing they need is social contact. If you sign them out of the world of work, their anxiety is going to get worse rather than better.' Sir Jeremy, speaking at the Buxton Literary Festival, Derbyshire, said the focus should be on supporting people with anxiety or depression so they can continue to work and lead their lives. The Tory MP, most recently Chancellor under Rishi Sunak and who narrowly held onto his seat by 819 votes at last year's General Election, added: 'What we should be doing is increasing mental health provision on the NHS. 'For that individual, it's far better but it's also better for Rachel Reeves when she's trying to make the numbers add up for her budget.' During the talk, Sir Jeremy backed current Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, saying his beleaguered party should not undergo another leadership change to improve its fortunes. He said: 'I don't think anyone else would have done much better. We've had four leaders in four years. If changing leader was the answer, we'd be doing much better in the polls than we are doing. 'We had the worst defeat in our history a year ago and it's going to take time for the country to give us a hearing again.' He urged Ms Badenoch to 'move on from contrition' to 'offering solutions' to Britain's problems. Sir Jeremy said: 'There's a football pitch-sized hole in politics for a party offering solutions. Labour is ducking decisions; Reform is not credible. 'I hope she [Kemi] turns things around but I recognise there's still a lot to do.' The MP, who represents Godalming and Ash, Surrey, ruled himself out of a return to frontline politics any time soon. He said: 'I made it clear to Kemi that I didn't wish to serve [in a front bench post in opposition] but if she wanted to bring me back before an election and if it would help, I would be around.' Jokingly, Sir Jeremy revealed being photographed more often with his pet labrador Poppy may have improved his poll ratings. The pet was pictured with the MP, his wife Lucia and their three children as they left 11 Downing Street for the final time following last July's election defeat. He said: 'Someone tweeted 'God, he's got a labrador, can I change the way I voted?'. That's the British public!'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store