Hello!

50 Comments

Daljinder Kaur, believed to be in her seventies, gave birth to a healthy boy last month.

The Telegraph reports, the National Fertility Centre in Haryana state, offers fertility treatment to women who are decades beyond their menopause.

Although her exact date of birth is unclear, Mrs Kaur told doctors she was a few years younger than her husband Mohinder Singh Gill, 79. If correct, that would make her the world’s oldest mother.

“Every one asked me to adopt a baby but I never wanted to. Now I have my own child,” said Mrs Kaur.

“We will raise him and give him a proper education. I had faith in Almighty that I will have my own baby, and Waheguru answered my prayers,” she told the Telegraph, using the Sikh term for God.

The couple have been married for 46 years, and decided to try IVF after seeing an advertisement for the clinic in neighbouring Haryana in a newspaper.

Mrs Kaur underwent three rounds of in-vitro fertilisation treatment using anonymous donor eggs. She gave birth by caesarian section on April 19.

India’s medical council has lobbied for a bill banning fertility treatment for women aged 50 and above, citing health concerns for both mother and child.

Dr Hrishikesh Pai, head of India’s federation of 31,000 gynaecologists said “We condemn this totally. With science, you can make a 90-year-old person pregnant, what’s the big deal? The question is not about technicalities, it’s about ethics. Our responsibility to the patient. This man is an upstart, he doesn’t represent us.

He needs to be banned.” “Not a good idea. It’s cowboy medicine,” added Dr Aniruddha Malpani, who runs a Mumbai-based fertility clinic. “Doctors are just out to show how much they can push the envelope. This gives IVF doctors a bad name. People think we’re irresponsible, doing stupid stuff.”

UPDATE 12 May

The Daily Mail reports, Mr Gill, who is a farmer admitted that they turned to IVF to try and end a legal battle over his father’s inheritance worth (500,000 pound) over $980K au.

He said: ‘My father was trying to deprive me of a share in his property on the plea because I didn’t have a child.

‘We had been engaged in a tussle for more than four decades.’

Mr Gill’s father Uttam Singh, who passed away eight years ago, wanted the property to be split between his children.

However Mr Gill claims his four siblings refused to give him his share because he had no children of his own to take care of.

Mr Gill said: ‘When this fight started, I was in my 40s so my wife and I tried to have a baby but there was some medical complication.

‘We went to see many doctors but it was the 1970s and 80s, so medical facilities weren’t that great.

‘It was embarrassing to not be able to produce a child, no doubt, but we got caught with litigation.’

Share your comments below.

Image via The Telegraph

  • oh dear, I really don’t know what to say.

    Reply

  • Omg, having a child when you almost 80, just so you can get an inheritance!! That’s disgusting. Who is going to look after this child when you pass away. This is so irresponsible and disgusting.

    Reply

  • as long as the child is surrounded by love that is all that matters

    Reply

  • as long as the child is loved it doesn’t matter

    Reply

  • I don’t like judging others but feel torn about this because to have a child for inheritance and money is wrong in my mind and to be in 70’s and 80’s then do it for that reason is selfish. I hope they can show the baby much love.

    Reply

  • Hmmm, I was just thinking the wonders and miracle of IVF, but am now confused as to why they wanted a baby? For money/inheritance? Really?

    Reply

  • So the reason they had a child was for money and property. I don’t condone people having children using IVF if they are over 50. This means their child will be their carer. This is just too selfish for my mind.

    Reply

  • That is a really sad reason to have a baby.

    Reply

  • What a sad upbringing this child may have if this is the true reason he was created. Good luck to them p, I for one couldn’t imagine chasing after a toddler in my 70’s.

    Reply

  • It seems like this baby’s future wasn’t really thought about. I could be wrong about that and I hope I am. They are now elderly parents and it will be sad for this little baby to only have their parents for what may be a short time. Of course, they may live until they’re both 100!

    Reply

  • I really hope they had this baby for the right reasons, but do wonder who will look after this poor little baby in the not too distant future?!

    Reply

  • Very selfish poor baby, why care about the inheritance when your foot is nearly in the grave, what is that baby gonna do when the elderly parents are not around to raise him.

    Reply

  • Well that is horrible and makes me sad

    Reply

  • This is kind of sad, it’s not the right motivation to have a child. And it’s the question these parents live long enough to bring up and love on their child….

    Reply

  • Words fail me!

    Reply

Post a comment
Like Facebook page

LIKE MoM on Facebook

Please enter your comment below
Would you like to include a photo?
No picture uploaded yet.
Please wait to see your image preview here before hitting the submit button.
Your MoM account


Lost your password?

Enter your email and a password below to post your comment and join MoM:

You May Like

Loading…

Looks like this may be blocked by you browser or content filtering.

↥ Back to top

Thanks For Your Star Rating!

Would you like to add a written rating or just a star rating?

Write A Rating Just A Star Rating
Join