5 ms·
We've wondered if this might have been a factor for our son. Wife and I were 35 when we had him, and he's severely autistic and has Leukemia. Research says tha
by CobaltFire 4y ago
We've wondered if this might have been a factor for our son. Wife and I were 35 when we had him, and he's severely autistic and has Leukemia.
Research says that incidences of both rise as the age of parents does, but it's not something heavily studied at this time. His oncologist said at least partially because they already deal with parents blaming themselves enough.
- runsWphotons 4y agoeh this research is in fruit flies
- lurquer 4y agoIndeed. Moreover, there is no reason to think the differences between a young and ‘elderly’ fruitfly have any similarity to humans, as our lifespans are absurdly different…
- colordrops 4y ago35 is not that old.
- milleramp 4y ago35 is considered a geriatric pregnancy. https://www.goodrx.com/health-topic/parenthood-pregnancy/geriatric-pregnancy https://www.goodrx.com/health-topic/parenthood-pregnancy/ger...
- petemir 4y agoLiterally the first words in TFA: ‘A “geriatric pregnancy” is an outdated term’
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y agoThat's a result of the euphemism treadmill, not of physical reality changing. Some call it advanced maternal age now and it's exactly the same thing, if you go see a fertility specialist you can be sure he will change his recommendations greatly depending on whether you are younger or older than 35.
- Apocryphon 4y agoIt's a confusing term as well, as geriatric, even when it comes to technical terms ("geriatric medicine") tends to refer to actual seniors and the elderly.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoDescriptions are usually relative. Obviously, a 65+ year old cannot get pregnant, so logically, geriatric pregnancy must mean a pregnancy at the older end of the ages that it is possible to be pregnant.
- rs999gti 4y agoThere have been cases where older women can still gestate a baby. Here's a story of a grandmother birthing her own grandchild. https://people.com/human-interest/grandmother-gave-birth-son-daughter-in-law-baby-never-felt-more-loved-by-husband/ https://people.com/human-interest/grandmother-gave-birth-son...
- Apocryphon 4y agoBut that is not what geriatric means, neither in the layman definition nor in the medical definition. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/geriatric https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/geriatric https://www.health.harvard.edu/d-through-i#G-terms https://www.health.harvard.edu/d-through-i#G-terms https://openmd.com/define?q=geriatrics https://openmd.com/define?q=geriatrics
- Spooky23 4y agoThe term was replaced by “advanced maternal age”. Same issues, new modern name. It’s a bizarre cultural problem.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- throwawaybbq1 4y agoI was shocked that this was the case and wished I knew about this sooner. Also had kids in mid-30s and it is complicated to say the least. I thought 40 was late (as had some friends succeed at that age).
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nostromo123 4y agoStatistics are a thing, individual biology and factors are another thing. Had our son when I was 41 and hubby 47 - got pregnant easily, pregnancy and birth was no problem, kiddo doing great. We did not plan it this late, but just wanted to say that higher age is not a guarantee of bad things.
- rs999gti 4y agoFor women who have not birthed at least one child, 35 is ancient. For men 35 is nothing, men can sire children to their last breath. Ask your friends who have started families past 35, so many stories about fertility, doctors, etc. It is also why you see so many twins among middle aged professional couples, the children were the result of fertility treatments. With the way society is changing, I think eventually human evolution will catch up and allow women to stay fertile later in life.
- javajosh 4y agoMy wife and I were older than you both when we had two healthy kids. Don't beat yourself up. Correlation != causation. You won a bad lottery, a lottery that young parents 'win' too. Small comfort I know, but that's the truth.
- echelon 4y agoThe probability increases because DNA errors accumulate. You're playing a smaller and smaller lottery as you age. Just because you had a healthy kid does not mean everyone will or that there is no risk. Humans evolved to have sex and get pregnant before middle age. That's just our biology. DNA itself is a machine, and ours doesn't have built in protections to accommodate later pregnancies with high fidelity. If we had evolutionary pressure, it would. But there is no such pressure.
- peter422 4y agoThe numbers go way up in the relative sense but are still quite small in the absolute sense. Evolutionarily speaking I think the differences are irrelevant.
- klipt 4y agoEvolutionarily speaking, the dangers of having older parents are definitely dwarfed by the fact that older parents just tend to have fewer kids. Cultures that encourage starting families at 25 will genetically dominate cultures that encourage starting families at 35.
- Brigand 4y agoEven though I agree with you, I would like to point out that more experienced and stable parents could be enough of an advantage to balance the benefits of having younger parents. Especially for fathers that have already a settled career and more time to invest in their offspring.
- jasonfarnon 4y ago
- DoreenMichele 4y agoFor the leukemia, where you live(d) may matter more than age: https://www.cancerhealth.com/article/live-near-cancer-hot-spot-new-tox-map-know https://www.cancerhealth.com/article/live-near-cancer-hot-sp...
- CobaltFire 4y agoWe actually looked into this, and not only has he never lived in any hot spots he's never visited one.
- DoreenMichele 4y agoI'm not sure we are on the same page here. I was suggesting that where the parents have lived might matter and I think you are saying "The child in question never went to any of those places."
- CobaltFire 4y agoGotcha; we never have either oddly enough. I would have assumed I had (military career) but I haven't. That said I've been exposed to all kinds of crap in my career. Even money that any given military ship would be considered a moving cancer zone.
- avgcorrection 4y agoHow many youngest-sibling children were born when their dad was 35 or older, these days? These things would have been epidemics.
- kerpotgh 4y ago[dead]
- rpgmaker 4y agoHaving children at 35 Didn't seem to be a problem decades ago.. like with many of the other newly popular maladies I think that it has to do more with stuff in our environment poisoning our sperm/ovaries than simply "aging". We might never find the culprit of course because it will hurt X big corporation bottom line.