Abstract
There is a growing trend in European countries for childbearing to occur later in women’s lives. The recent increase in the use of ART, together with the long-term trend towards later childbearing, raises questions as to the acceptable age of childbearing in contemporary society. ART legislation varies considerably across Europe and age limits for access to fertility treatment are rarely defined. The legislation takes into account the preferences of potential parents; children’s preferences, however, are not ascertained. The article discusses a research method used in a survey of older children and young adults. The objective of the survey was to answer the following questions: What age would children prefer their parents to be if they could choose? What are their reasons? Respondents were asked the following question: “How old would you like your mother and father to be when you are 20 (version for respondents younger than 16) or 25 (version for those older than 16) if you could wave a magic wand?” Furthermore, their reasons for wishing a change were identified through an open question, “Why would you like to change the age of your parents?”
[1] Acton, Q. A. (2012). Infertility: new insights for the healthcare professional. Atlanta: Scholarly Editions. Search in Google Scholar
[2] Allen, B., & Tussey, C. (2012). Can projective drawings detect if a child experienced sexual or physical abuse? A systematic review of the controlled research. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 16(2), 137–145. Search in Google Scholar
[3] Annunziata, M. A., Giovannini, L., & Muzzatti, B. (2012). Assessing the body image: Relevance, application and instruments for oncological settings. Supportive Care in Cancer, 20(5), 901–907. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1339-xSearch in Google Scholar
[4] Baxter, A. L., Mehernoor, F. W., Baxter, W. V., Leong, T., & Wyatt, M. M. (2011). Development and validation of a pictorial nausea rating scale for children. Pediatrics, 127, e1542–e1549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-1410Search in Google Scholar
[5] Becker, A., Rubly, M., El Kahtib, D., Becker, N., & von Gontard, A. (2011). Central nervous system processing of emotions in children with faecal incontinence. Acta Paeadiatrica, 100(12), e267–e274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2011.02348.xSearch in Google Scholar
[6] Beets, G., Schippers, J., & te Velde, E. R. (Eds.) (2011). The future of motherhood in Western Societies. Heidelberg: Springer. Search in Google Scholar
[7] Donoghue, S. (2000). Projective techniques in consumer research. Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 28, 47–53. Search in Google Scholar
[8] Dunson, D. B., Colombo, B., & Baird, D. D. (2002). Changes with age in the level and duration of fertility in the menstrual cycle. Human Reproduction, 17, 1399–1403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.5.1399Search in Google Scholar
[9] ESHRE (2013). Task force on ethics and law 13. The welfare of the child in medically assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction, 22, 2585–2588. http://www.eshre.eu/~/media/emagic%20files/SIGs/Ethics%20and%20Law/Task%20Forces/Task%20Force%2013.pdf (date last accessed: October 6, 2013). Search in Google Scholar
[10] Eurostat (2013). Populations and social conditions — online database. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu (date last accessed: August 21, 2013). Search in Google Scholar
[11] Garb, H. N., Lilienfeld, S. O., Nezworski, J. M., & Wood, J. M. (2002). Effective use of projective techniques in clinical practice: Let the data help with selection and interpretation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(5), 454–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.33.5.454Search in Google Scholar
[12] Garb, H. N., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Wood, J. M. (2004). Projective techniques and behavioral assessment. In M. J. Hilsenroth & D.J. Segal (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, personality assessment. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Search in Google Scholar
[13] Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological assessment. (5th edition). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Search in Google Scholar
[14] HEFA (2010). Facts and figures 2006: fertility problems and treatment. London: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Search in Google Scholar
[15] Ivey, J. (2012). Demystifying research: Projective research techniques. Pediatric Nursing, 38(3), 181–182. Search in Google Scholar
[16] Jungwirth, A., Diemer, T., Dohle, D., Giwercman, A., Kopa, Z., Krausz, C., & Tournaye, H. (2012). Textbook of assisted reproductive technologies. Arnhem: European Association of Urology. Search in Google Scholar
[17] Kohler, H. P., Billari, F. C., & Ortega, J. A. (2006). Low fertility in Europe: Causes, implications and policy options. In F. R. Harris (Ed.), The baby bust: Who will do the work? Who will pay the taxes? Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Search in Google Scholar
[18] Konečná, J., Burcin, B., Kučera, T. (submitted). How old is too old? A contribution to the discussion on age limits for access to ART. Submitted to Human Reproduction. Search in Google Scholar
[19] Leader, A. (2006). Pregnancy and motherhood: the biological clock. Sex Reproduction & Menopause, 4(1), 3–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sram.2006.03.003Search in Google Scholar
[20] Leridon, H. (2004). Can assisted reproduction technology compensate for the natural decline in fertility with age? A model assessment. Human Reproduction, 19, 1548–1553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh304Search in Google Scholar
[21] Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. American Psychological Society, 1(2), 27–66. Search in Google Scholar
[22] Müller-Götzmann, C. (2009). Reproduktionsmedizinische Grundlagen. In Artifizielle Reproduktion und gleichgeschlechtliche Elternschaft. Heidelberg: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01282-2Search in Google Scholar
[23] Nybo Andersen, A., Wohlfahrt, J., Christens, P., Olsen, J., Melbye, M. (2000). Maternal age and fetal loss: population based register linkage study. BMJ, 320(7251), 1708–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7251.1708Search in Google Scholar
[24] Parliament of the Czech Republic (2011). Act No. 373/2011 Coll. on Specific Health Services. Search in Google Scholar
[25] Plante, T. G. (2005). Contemporary Psychological Assessment: Cognitive and Personality Assessment. In T. G. Plante (Ed.), Contemporary clinical psychology (2nd ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Search in Google Scholar
[26] Rizk, B., Garcia-Velasco, J., Sallam, H., & Makrigiannakis, A. (2008). Infertility and assisted reproduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar
[27] Roller, R. M. (2010). Qualitative research: Use of projective techniques depends on objectives. Research design review. http://researchdesignreview.com/2010/06/30/qualitative-research-use-ofprojective-techniques-depends-on-objectives/ (date last accessed: March 22, 2014). Search in Google Scholar
[28] Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2011). RCOG statement on later maternal age. http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/ (date last accessed: March 19, 2014). Search in Google Scholar
[29] Schmidt, L., Sobotka, T., Bentzen, J. G., & Nyboe Andersen, A.; on behalf of the ESHRE (2012). Reproduction society task force. Demographic and medical consequences of the postponement of parenthood. Human Reproduction Update, 18(1), 29–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr040Search in Google Scholar
[30] Seli, E. (2011). Infertility. Chichester: Wiley Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444393958Search in Google Scholar
[31] Stronach, E., Toth, S., Rogosch, F., Oshri, A., Manly, J., & Cicchetti, D. (2011). Child maltreatment, attachment security, and internal representations of mother and mother-child relationships. Child Maltreatment, 16, 137–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077559511398294Search in Google Scholar
[32] te Velde, E., Habbema, D., Leridon, H., & Eijkemans, M. (2012). The effect of postponement of first motherhood on permanent involuntary childlessness and total fertility rate in six European countries since the 1970s. Human Reproduction, 27, 1179–1183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der455Search in Google Scholar
[33] Thorpe, R., Croy, S., Petersen, K., & Pitts, M. (2012). In the best interests of the child? Regulating assisted reproductive technologies and the well-being of offspring in the three Australian states. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 26, 259–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebs012Search in Google Scholar
[34] United Nations (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (date last accessed: March 17, 2014). Search in Google Scholar
[35] United Nations (1966). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx (date last accessed: March 17, 2014). Search in Google Scholar
[36] United Nations (1989). The Convention on the Rights of the Child. http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx (date last accessed: March 17, 2014). Search in Google Scholar
[37] Viglione, D. J., & Rivera, B. (2003). Assessing personality and psychopathology with projective methods. In B. I. Wiener, J. R. Graham, & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of psychology. (Vol.10 — Assessment Psychology). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Search in Google Scholar
[38] Will, V., Eadie, D., & MacAskill, S. (1996). Projective and enabling techniques explored. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 14(6), 38–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634509610131144Search in Google Scholar
[39] Zweifel, J. E., Covington, S. N., & Applegarth, L.D. (2012). “Last-chance kids”: A good deal for older parents—but what about the children? Sexuality, Reproduction and Menopause, 4, 4–12. Search in Google Scholar
© 2014 Institute for Research in Social Communication, Slovak Academy of Sciences
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
