I remember the first time I heard the term ‘geriatric pregnancy.’
I was 36 years old, newly pregnant and my RE (Reproductive Endocrinologist) called my pregnancy 2 things: a miracle (after years of secondary infertility) and a geriatric pregnancy.
At 36, I was offended. Currently at 45, the term rings with an even louder feeling of disrespect.
And, as I find myself still navigating the waters of secondary infertility and still trying, at 45, to get pregnant with my own eggs (OE), here’s something I’ve learned over the last 9 years:
There is very little hope in the world for women trying to conceive (TTC) with their own eggs at 40 or above.
And cruel statements are made:
“Just because you still have a period doesn’t mean you have good eggs. Most of your eggs are bad…”
“Your chances of getting pregnant are 1–2%. Your time is up.”
“It’s something you really should’ve done sooner. You’re probably going to have to use DE (Donor Eggs).”
And the level to which all of the above statements are fatally flawed are UNREAL.
First of all, that 1–2% chance data- where did it come from? What was the sample size of women who participated? For how long? And, in general, how representative is the population since most women (in their 40s) are done having children and aren’t in the pool of “trying to conceive”?
And, if we’re basing this 1–2% on women who lived two or more decades ago, who didn’t have access to all of the various infertility interventions that we have available today, how are we still using that statistic and calling it true?
Also, why aren’t we taking into consideration things like stress, trauma, clean eating and clean living and uterine health into the equation of how fertile a woman in her 40s is? Why is egg quality the key factor we look at when a woman could have a good egg get fertilized but, if her uterus isn’t healthy, that healthy embryo won’t implant anyway?