Taking the single mom plunge -- lots of questions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Just make sure that whatever route you choose that you don't end up with super-twins (triplets or quads) inadvertently.

This is not something a 42 year old needs to worry about, realistically. Egg quality drops rapidly as you age, and at 42, only about 10% of your eggs are good. Even if you do get pregnant, your risk of miscarriage will be close to 50%.

My God! Don't you think OP - at 42 - is capable of weighing the risks?

such negative posters!

[Anonymous]

I couldn't agree more with the PP. People say that they aren't trying to be snarky, but that is indeed what they are. It sounds OP like you have given this issue serious thought and are ready to take the plunge. Go for it! Talk with an RE about which route is best for you and give it your best shot. Plenty of people get pregnant, AND STAY PREGNANT at 40+. Of course there are risks, like anything in life, but the reward is so so great. All the best to you OP!

[Anonymous]

OP. Good Luck. I'm 43 and not single, but if I were, and the options were there, I'd do what you are considering. Parenthood is worth it. I am just trying to get pregnant with no. 2.

[Anonymous]

Here is one thought, if you want more than one child and and if you have enough money for this (not sure if you'll get insurance to cover it, depending on your numbers). Some women do multiple cycles and bank (freeze) a bunch of embryos before they start to try to get pregnant. That way, if you do respond well to the drugs and get good quality embryos to freeze, you can try to for a second child again in a couple of years using your embryos made with 42 year old eggs rather than 44 year old eggs, which at that age can make a difference. Some women also do genetic testing (of all the chromosomes) of the embryos to make sure that whatever is frozen is chromosonally normal.

You're going to have to be picky about your clinic if you do this, and may have to travel. You need to make sure the clinic does vitrification as its freezing method, which is more expensive and but has a better thaw rate. I don't know if I'd use SG as they are very picky about the embryos they freeze, but some A+ embryos are not chromosonally normal and some B- embryos are and will result in a pregnancy. I think SIRM in NYC (Dr. T) will do this, and you may want to talk to Dominion and CCRM.

[Anonymous]

I don't want to be negative, because I actually think it's great that you want to have children. But at 42 it is VERY difficult to get pregnant at all, and extremely unlikely that you'll have twins. I would do some serious research into the success rates at 42 and 43, because they're dismal (in the 10% range, and that's with IVF). You might want to think about donor egg or donor embryos. If money and time are no object, then go ahead and try for a year or two with your own eggs. But if you have monetary considerations, I would go ahead and look at other options. I wish you luck.

I went to SG at age 41 and was given 30% of success with IVF, not 10%. I tried 3 IUIs with no success (other than a chemical pregnancy) and did one IVF and got pregnant at 42. So the odds are as "dismal" as this poster would lead you to believe.

[Anonymous]

Here are the success rates by age for SG. Keep in mind that, according to their stats, about 20% of cycles get cancelled or don't make it to transfer in women over 40. http://www.shadygrovefertility.com/ivf_success08

Obviously, your odds will be higher or lower than average based on your FSH and number of follicles. When I went for my SG consult they ran my age, FSH and number of follicles through a computer model and gave me their predicted success rate for my situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

serious research into the success rates at 42 and 43, because they're dismal (in the 10% range, and that's with IVF).

I went to SG at age 41 and was given 30% of success with IVF, not 10%. I tried 3 IUIs with no success (other than a chemical pregnancy) and did one IVF and got pregnant at 42. So the odds are as "dismal" as this poster would lead you to believe.

I was talking about success rates at 42 and 43, not at 41. Each year there is quite a steep decline. According to the Shady Grove stats posted above, there is an 18% ongoing pregnancy rate for women over 40 who did IVF. That includes the higher rate for the 41 year olds. Also, just because you had success doesn't mean that the success rates overall are any higher.

Really, I want the OP to have success. I just want her to be realistic about the odds and be careful about where she chooses to spend her money.

[Anonymous]

You need to read my post again - I was 42 when I conceived, so I don't know what your point is.

[Anonymous]

I think her point is that you are a data point of one -- and that she should consider the actual statistics and not anecdotes from DCUM when deciding how to spend her time/money/emotional energy. I know plenty of women who have tried IVF and failed multiple times in their early forties. Obviously others have succeeded or else SG's success rates would be 0%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think her point is that you are a data point of one -- and that she should consider the actual statistics and not anecdotes from DCUM when deciding how to spend her time/money/emotional energy. I know plenty of women who have tried IVF and failed multiple times in their early forties. Obviously others have succeeded or else SG's success rates would be 0%.

Thanks. Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Then maybe it would have been better to say that in her original post and not that the rate is a dismal 10%. Not trying to be snarky, but having been in the position she is in now, reading that would have been devastating for me. I think its best for OP to know that everyone is different - a 20 year old can have the eggs of a 50 year old, and vice versa. The best plan for her is to RUN to a fertility specialist - time is of the essence! Best of luck - remain positive!

[Anonymous]

I went to Dr. Sacks. He is very kind and supportive, but long story short, I'm lucky I didn't end up with sextuplets. We moved to SG, and, yes ,it is factory-like, but I had a unique situation, and I personally think that I benefitted from the collective wisdom of multiple doctors who discussed my case.

Given your age, you also might want to think about CCRM outside of Denver. The success rates far exceed anything here in DC, and perhaps it is worth a consult (which can be done over the phone).

[Anonymous]

Why so much effort and expense rather than adopting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why so much effort and expense rather than adopting?

What, you think adoption takes no effort and is inexpensive?? Are you talking from personal experience, PP? I know what it takes - I'm an adoptive single mom (who adopted in my mid-40's, by the way, OP). There is no easy way. Power to the OP for pursuing her dream in the manner that is best for her.

[Anonymous]

Go for it OP. Adoption? What woman/couple is going to give a baby to a single mom? You'll need to go to an orphanage, meaning lots of time and risk (of course money). My single friends who adopted took over 2 years, and the cost was more than IVF. Motherhood is wonderful, no matter what: but don't suggest something w/o mentioning the risks.