Tags

, , , , ,

Would you follow fertility advice from the 1650’s – 1870’s? An era where women used lead as make up and used mouse skin as ‘beauty spots’ to hide their syphilitic sores on their faces? No? Neither would I!

I was just reading another blog I follow where the woman TTC is worrying about getting ‘too old’ to conceive, it reminded me of an article a friend sent me a couple of months ago.

It was just after Koha had pulled out and (as usual) I was telling my friend about being 37 now, and back in that place again with no donor. How my chances of getting pregnant were getting significantly lower each year, and probably incrementally every few months.

This has been freaking the shit out of me since I lost the second baby when I was 34 to be honest. (And now I’m 37 years, 4mths. I always imagined I’d have a 10 year old by now.)

In response my friend sent me this awesome article from The Atlantic – which I think is a relatively well regarded magazine right?

It’s WELL worth a read if you are heading for what all our nasty fertility clinics and medical establishments call AMH (the dreaded Advanced Maternal Age).

I felt myself being able to breathe easier after reading it. Literally.

I won’t spoil it by giving all the details but suffice to say – you wouldn’t expect the Journal of Human Reproduction, (which is widely cited in media stories relating to women’s fertility), to be basing its statistics on a study of French women from the era 1650 – 1870 would ya?!

Go read this to help all you AMH candidates breathe a little easier:

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/how-long-can-you-wait-to-have-a-baby/309374/?single_page=true

Advertisements