Gov't to introduce age cap of 42 for subsidized fertility treatment

Actually, fertility rapidly declines after age 35 in women, so actually I am in favour of no fertility treatment for anyone over 40.

There was an article in the US press a few days ago that stated a growing number of women in their 40s are having babies, many for the first time, studies show. According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, in American women ages 40 to 44, birthrates have hit their highest point since 1967. Births have also become increasingly common among women in their late 30s.

Older motherhood is not a new phenomena. During the 1940s and '50s, when baby boomers were being born, fortysomething motherhood was common, with many women having the last of their three, four or more children well into middle age. But those numbers cratered during the '60s and '70s, when the baby boom ran its course.

On a personal note, my great-grandmother is in that category, since she was born in 1900, and was having her last child in 1943 (out of 12). While some doctors may warn women about the risks of putting off motherhood to their 40s, studies show that older parents are more confident, less stressed and that their children do better on math and reading tests than children born to younger mothers.

With the advances in medicine, and the mother has reasonably good health, it is not too far fetched for women in their late 30's & 40's having kids. There have also been studies that show the older the male, that may be the cause of some of the birth defects that we normally thought were due to advanced maternal age.

Bottom line, having kids younger is still not a 100% guarentee of having a child with no birth defects or pregnancy complications, and I understand that the chances increase with age for these complications. But if the women are healthy enough and can handle it, I say go for it.

Good move.

"My best friend's wife had 2 babies through IVF , one at age 40 one at 42. Both perfectly healthy and super cute , just like their mum"

Oh well .. there goes all that medical evidence that proves that its more difficult to have babies after 40 then. All the scientists, doctors and human biologists must be completely wrong. Because your best friends wife did it?

Of course its not - your situation is ANECDOTAL. My own grandmother had her last kid naturally at 45, (and she was already a grandmother of 3 at the time) but It doesn't mean everyone can do it. It is incredibly rare.

Statistically, IVF has a much higher failure rate among women over 40. This is fact, whether you like it or not. Of course there will be 10% of women (So 1 in 10) who manage to conceive with IVF after age 40. This means 9 in 10 will not. Those over 40 will also face a higher rate of miscarriage. This is also fact. It doesnt matter how many women over 40 are registered and waiting in IVF clinics for treatment - the fact is, statistically they are likely to fail.

And the reason it is likely to fail is because they are too old. This is not a medical problem - this is biology. In my opinion, if a woman is in her 40s and begins IVF etc, they chose to wait so late to have children. Therefore they should receive no subsidies for IVF what so ever.

Women who have had cancer treatment, or have trouble conceiving due to a medical reason (ie blocked tubes, PCO etc) should be given treatment for a medical problem. But missing the boat because you are too old is not a medical problem, its a social one.

My beef is with the govt. oyajis cutting.programs like this whilst wasting much more money on pork barbell programs and subsidies that benefit no one except afew cronies. Priorities....

Exactly. I wonder how much they actually have spent on this assistance this year, as compared to how much they have spent on trying to get the Olympics back to Tokyo. They will spend millions just so that they can get the games back here, and then spend billions to build and hype the venue, and then come out at the end and say that it was a flop. Yet they can't spend the money on helping somone to have children. I find it amazing sometimes.

@falseflagsteve, please re-read my post. IVF is an expensive treatment with a high failure rate and many unknown risks. Legal childcare and abortion are neither of these things.

There is already a big generation gap in Japan as Japan population is shrinking fast in years to come. By phasing out the subsidy, this will not help with the increase of population growth. Another possibility is to use the money saved from this reduced subsidy to couples who have successfully given birth to newborns.

This way, Japan is encouraging growth rate again of her population again .....

Good luck with population growth!

"Let's ban women from any grad school program ? Even losing 4 yrs of high fertility at uni is scandalous. They should be sent to work from 16 to 20... that would give them opportunities to find a 10 year older mate financially able and make all the kiddos before 25. Then at 40 for the woman and 50 for the man, they can enter a rojin home. They're old, kaput, sodai gomi.."

Feel better? You did realize that I said 'STARTS'.....geez, way to have a hissy fit.

Is it just me or is this fuzzy logic? They stop support at 42, but state the success rate is much lower over 40. Wouldn't that mean that it is the women over 40 that need the treatment most? Regardless of their excuse, it is just another way for the Japanese health ministry to save money and reduce services.

let's be honest, being a mom is this country is pretty crappy

It depends on your outlook. I had a great time being a mum in Japan. My daughter and her friends are also having a great time being mums in Japan.

these women are refusing for pretty damn good reasons in my opinion

I agree. If your job is more important than your child, it's better if you don't have the child in the first place.

As for the 30-somethings who are 'terrified' of having a less-than-perfect child; how about adoption? A ready-made, fully-formed child without the bother and inconvenience of pregnancy, and a homeless child gets a new family. Two birds with one stone..

OK. that would be better if they had their kids younger,,,,blah blah blah. But they didn't. Japan doesn't do much already. So now scrap that. Great idea. That's the Abenomics. Families, mothers, women, kids.,,what a burden for corporate Japan ! Let's scrap medical help, let's push consumer tax, let's make education more expensive... Then we'll wonder : how that we have so few kids in Japan ?

Statistically, IVF has a much higher failure rate among women over 40. This is fact, whether you like it or not. Of course there will be 10% of women (So 1 in 10) who manage to conceive with IVF after age 40.

Etc... by definition, if they had no problem conceiving, they'd never step into an IVF clinic.

And If you have IVF, an increased risk of cancer for mom too. Of which treatment will be on the taxpayer.

And no IVFs, you're sure there will be less taxpayers.

the average cost per attempt is 300,000 yen, of which the public fund covers 150,000 yen.

That's a huge cost. Can't it be reduced by proposing it in public hospitals ? Then 150 000 yen is huge, as nearly all need to do several tries, so they have to count 1 to 2 million yen of savings dedicated to that. That's surely a deterrent for couples that may delay the treatment for that and lose time, trying by cheaper means. They should make it 100% free for under 42, and make doctors encourage them to try it much sooner, when they start having fertility issues.

My grandmother was a grandmother at 40

And mines were mothers of their last kids in their 40's. My aunts were kids when I was born. Nobody questioned it. A relative had a sister that was 30 year older than himself, same mother. Commonplace then. That didn't seem anecdotal at all. Only the baby-boomers were a model generation : married at 22, kids at 25 and 28, buying their house, having 2 cars... well, it's also because they had a stable job at 22, a steady career with increasing income. That was the exception in human history to have the economy allowing that. Before and after that, people had more complicated lives. My grand-parents marrying at 30 and nearly 40 due to poverty then a little war displacing everybody...is not so different from the youth now, not getting jobs with income enough to pay a roof before 30 and thus starting steady relationships only then. Bottom line : instead of dreaming of a coming back of the model citizen in the post-war society, they have to support people that live now, instead of judging them. And if IVF can help them, that's what should be done.

suffering severely from postpartum

Postpartum depression risk is higher in younger mothers and in cases of unplanned pregnancies.

If women need IVF, to conceive A child, at age 42, then the chance of a sibling is practically non-existent.

When it works IVF gives much more multiple births than otherwise. Maybe you've heard about Octomum, etc.

As for the 30-somethings who are 'terrified' of having a less-than-perfect child; how about adoption? a homeless child gets a new family.

There are no homeless children in Japan. Only a very long waiting list for the few that can be adopted. And international adoption has become real human traffic.

My 5 y.o girl is an IVF kid, conceived at a fertility clinic in Tokyo. Zero health problem, thankfully. Mum was 35 when daughter was born..

Doc at the time said he would have said we had no chance if it had been 20 years ago. Doc also said IVF success rate is virtually the same as that if a couple try to conceive naturally - around 30-35%.

Every time I've been to the clinic, there's been a lot of late 30/40s women. Maybe some left it too late, others - or their partners - clearly will have some kind of physical problem.

At 300,000 yen a cycle, it's not something I think many people would choose to do.

Someone deemed a candidate for IVF has been proven infertile, but able to be helped medically. The male has to be functioning for IVF to go ahead (or they use donor sperm). 'I don't see' is a figure of speech.

An age cap on subsidies is NOT discrimination. Jesus. After age 42, the success rate (live births per one cycle) is 6-7% (despite your friends who seem to be above the curve). That's a 93-94% failure rate.

Would you:

Buy a car that had a 94% chance of breaking down?

Fly on an airline with a 6% success rate?

Buy stock with a 94% chance of tanking?

It's not discrimination, it's cost effectiveness! The bottom line!

" those 7250 babies born via IVF is an indication that there is still hope, no? "

7250 babies born, out of how many tries?

7250 babies born, but how many miscarriages, and subsequent treatment for those?

How many of those have autism or some other defect that will require even more money? As I said above, the rate for birth defects for children of those over 40 with IVF is 8%, double the natural rate.

" Rather than address these issues, they blame and scorn women who heaven forbid, put off having kids until they were financially stable or wanted one."

So now it's men's fault again. I believe the objection is to wanting others to pay for it. Schools are necessary to society even if one has no children, or do you not think so? Do you advocate withholding cancer and other medical treatments for those whose lifestyle choices have been poor? I would deem schools and cancer treatment to necessities. I don't see the need for cycle upon cycle of IVF for women past an age where the treatments are effective! 6-7% isn't enough to justify hundreds of man in treatments for women for whom it most likely will not work, as determined by medical testing!

Remind us which clinic employs you, doctor ?

Because what I say doesn't back up your views, wherever you got them from, doesn't mean that I haven't read reliable sources over a number of years to form mine. You're presumptuous and insulting.

I would prefer that the medical testing to be done by the fertility doctors,

. . .where do you think the politicians get the information? Where do you think the suggestion came from but the medical association and the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Do you think the politicians just make up a number? Good God. Don't ever call me uninformed again.

kimuzukashiiiii, I'm 100% with you.

If Japan wants more babies Japan better start paying their younger workers more, allow them to taker their holidays and not demand they work overtime. Japan INC has created this problem and it is our taxes that are paying to fix it. I'm all for treatment for women who want to have kids at any age. Period. Now will they subsidize the tests that older women are recommended to take so they can decide to terminate a child with serious issues - or at least tell these women about this so they don't end up with a child they don't want and weren't prepared for? That sounds harsh and cruel but a lot of women over 30 are terrified to have kids here because they have been scared into thinking they will have a child with server disabilities - and they can't afford the 2000.00 yen it costs upfront, nor are close to a hospital that offers the test. The whole "scare" tactic isn't working. It is making the issue worse and if women could take such tests for free, I think you would see child numbers go up.

Having spent a fair amount of time in fertility clinics here in Japan recently, I can agree with other posters that there are quite a few over 40s pursuing treatment. Why the government doesn't simply provide stricter limits, such as fewer chances after 40 (or 42 or whenever), more stringent screenings, etc. is beyond me, though I suspect it's just perceived as a simple policy answer to a media controversy. Of course, no thought as to how it might affect the declining birthrate, and no thought of how to encourage more people to have children - through encouraging more stable employment, enforceable gender-equity and maternity/paternity leave policies that people are encouraged to use, increased vacation time, more affordable pre-schools, etc. etc. etc.

Pretty sad, you think people would be wanting to have more babies

"I am also not disputing that the old boys club mentality in this country is a complete freaking joke."

Interesting, you hypocrite, you are just having an old boy mentality in your ridiculous posts. Who are you to judge women who want to have children even at 40 years old? Who are you?

A 40 years old women wants to get pregnant, fine. A 20 years old women is not ready and wants an abortion, fine. That's the responsibilities of a sane government to help them whatever it takes. Period.

You obscure financial logic makes no sense, I pay taxes so that it helps people life not for getting it wasted by stupid oyagies that take a part of it in their pockets. That's what you should be frustrated about, not about women wanting to get a child.

So what if a woman wants to have a baby in her 40's? So what if she didn't want one earlier in life? Men should keep their mouths closed in this case.

Recently I've had casual conversations with young women - both Japanese and Western - who actually regard IVF as merely a lifestyle option, something that they'll do in their late thirties or early forties when they get all the "fun years" out of their systems. One of them, an educated young lady of 25, told me that she planned to have twins in her forties. She was perfectly serious, she had even chosen their genders and everything.

Since when did IVF, an expensive treatment with a high failure rate and many unknown risks, become something akin to picking out a new sofa? And why should I have to help pay for it?

.Would you teach me the country where an abortion or IVF is free?

France. I think most other E.U. countries too.

how the birth rate is affected by the free medical treatment.

They make better than Japan. But it's hard to tell the impact of IVF access, since these countries have other policies helping people, like family benefits, free childcare, free education, protection of working mothers (companies can't fire them nor downgrade them during pregnancy...a law Japan would need since 1/2 of working pregnant women are fired), etc...

"Only the baby-boomers were a model generation : married at 22, kids at 25 and 28, buying their house, having 2 cars... well, it's also because they had a stable job at 22, a steady career with increasing income. That was the exception in human history to have the economy allowing that. Before and after that, people had more complicated lives. My grand-parents marrying at 30 and nearly 40 due to poverty then a little war displacing everybody...is not so different from the youth now, not getting jobs with income enough to pay a roof before 30 and thus starting steady relationships only then."

This historic point is so often ignored. But societies everywhere still run by BBs fear the non-model citizen and judgement is easier and cheaper than help.

When women started taking "control" of their fertility, not falling for the whole "you must get married" crap.

If this is 'taking control' they're not exactly doing a stellar job. How does waiting till your ovaries are gasping their last breath 'taking control' of one's fertility? Squandering it is more like it. And we all have to pay for their lack of foresight? Why?

This certainly costs a lot less than than pension and health care for those we dislike.

You really have it in for SAHMs, almost irrationally so. It's not your place to 'dislike' others' life decisions, but you work and that's the politically correct choice, so you feel completely at ease, nay, entitled, to bash those who don't live like you do. Exactly how much of your tax dollars goes to the Kokumin Nenkin that is paid out to housewives? They do pay money into it you know, my MIL did. So after their 30 years of payment, just how much of your tax yen go to their 76,000 yen every two months? I'd think that more would be going to that ridiculous tearing up of perfectly good roads every March, but there's nary a word about things like that....just targeting other women who have chosen to take care of their own children.

And with say thousands of women getting 2-3 cycles each (you rarely have a pregnancy that 'sticks' the first time around) at 30 man each, the care they need when they miscarry, the unending state support when they have disabled children, are you really sure it would be cheaper?

And I actually DO know people who are undergoing treatment who HAVE been trying for well over a decade.

But the are by no means the majority of those looking for IVF. And your handful of friends do not a reliable data base make.

Himan, a little more reading on the topic

'Himajin'. I personally think the numbers are actually WORSE than the media make it out to be. It's the elephant in the room. I don't rely on 'media' but sources like American obstetrics data, fertility center data (the people who are actually performing the treatments), solid sources I look up myself.

35 years old is statistically proven to be the borderline for Down's Syndrome at least, and it has been known for decades. Women all over the West putting their fingers in their ears and shouting 'Lalalala' won't change the unfortunate truth.

After menopause that would be with donated eggs. But they don't do it at these ages in France.

I checked, there is law banning it for post-menopausal women. Otherwise, as I said, it's up to each doctor.

How can a global failure rate of 77% (2012) be regarded as a "success?

It's nearing 70% of SUCCESS rate in 2013. There was no revolution, your figure is right, as it's around 25% of success per try. So they repeat. And the final success is reaching 70% (all ages together). It's huge, we're coming from 1% in the 70's. Don't forget that, beside a minority getting a baby from donor sperm or surrogacies, all the women were having fertility problems and 0% success rate previously.

And that figure shoots up to 95% in women in their forties.

Yes 5 to 20 % per try. Which is why some have to repeat 10 times. And they 50% of chances of having one or more children. And a country can have 1% more of natality. India is not interested, but Japan ?

The rate of birth defects doubles (8% vs. 4% in your 20s)

So at 4% risk it's OK and at 8%, it's not ? You know what ? In most countries, it's still well over 8%. So they should stop reproducing ?

That fertility starts to drop at 27,

Let's ban women from any grad school program ? Even losing 4 yrs of high fertility at uni is scandalous. They should be sent to work from 16 to 20... that would give them opportunities to find a 10 year older mate financially able and make all the kiddos before 25. Then at 40 for the woman and 50 for the man, they can enter a rojin home. They're old, kaput, sodai gomi....

It must be exhausting trying to care for a newborn when your 40+,

That's it. 40 is so old. You know the saying ? "When you're over 40 and wake in the morning without some part of your body awfully aching, that means you're dead."

The quality from a man deteriorates over times as well. I see nothing mentioned here, nor in or media outlets, that discusses this.

Actually from time to time I do see articles about the risks of geriatric fatherhood. There are strong links between higher rates of autism and schizophrenia and older low-quality sperm.

If that fails, they can do it with eggs from donors. I have seen 80% rate over 3 cycles for donor's eggs, any age.

Puzzling. Why go to all that time, trouble, expense to get pregnant with a baby that isn't biologically related to you? Might as well adopt, no?

the assumption that the man is alright

No, no, no. Now, you know what I meant. If a couple is approved for IVF then the husband must be alright, was what I said. They will not start IVF if the husband cannot produce sperm or if his sperm is deformed etc.

If his sperm are deformed or not good in some way, I don't see the procedure proceeding. Low sperm count is different from the sperm being unsuitable and low sperm count is easily and cheaply fixable.

It's not an 'assumption' the man is tested too, before a couple embarks on IVF. You're looking for some kind of evil discrimination where there is none.

You're sick of the blame game? Perhaps you could take a look at this thread and see what people are saying about women - clearly blaming women for not having kids in their 20s.

Fertility is an absolute, sorry to say....one day your body will give out. Not paying attention isn't wise, and yes, it's the woman's choice as to whether she postpones motherhood past 40. All fine and dandy, I think the problem that people have is them wanting strangers to pay for it!

I think himajin has more or less said it all. It isn't the state's place to subsidise women in their 40s having kids they couldn't be bothered to have when they were fertile and who they won't have the energy to keep up with as they grow (I consider myself pretty fit for my age, but a couple of weeks looking after a 2-year old had me worn to a frazzle). There are plenty of babies in need of parents without doing all the IVF stuff, and my taxes are better spent on other stuff.

As a student, I've taken entrance exams with 1% to 5% chances. That was (and that's still) even worse when looking for a job.

It's one thing to fail an exam. It's another to fail a baby. A baby. How can you possibly compare the two?

but tmarie ... doesnt it sound kind of insane? Having baby (not so much over 30 but definitely over 40) means a massive increase in risk of problems.

So lets say woman age 42 gets pregnant via IVF, (¥300,000 a cycle and it takes a woman in her early thirties an average of 3) they screen for problems (¥200,000) and find something wrong due to her age. She then has an abortion (at around ¥200,000) because she doesn't want a child with problems.

We have just thrown prospectively ¥1 million of taxpayers money away for nothing? on ONE person, at a time where people are struggling to pay bills and buy food?

To be honest, we need women to be having more children. Like 2 or 3 each. The only way to get that to happen, is to get them to have them earlier - starting in late twenties. If women need IVF, to conceive A child, at age 42, then the chance of a sibling is practically non-existent.

No, the only way to get that to happen is to offer more support to women (and families) - be it fertility treatment, daycare, mat leave, child bonuses, having better work/life balances... The more educated a woman, the later and fewer kids they have. Why? Because being a mom isn't all there is for them and let's be honest, being a mom is this country is pretty crappy - I base this on observations here and abroad and talking with my mom friends. Have a kid here and your life is pretty much over because that is how society here is set up. Women don't want to give up what they have these days. Why blame them when the men here really don't give up anything after having a kid.

If women need IVF, to conceive A child, at age 42, then the chance of a sibling is practically non-existent.

I'd like your stats on that please. Rubbish.

Usagito, that is also rubbish. There are tests, as I mentioned, that can help determine the chances of having a child with a disability. Younger women also suffer PPD and actually if you look at stats, chidl abuse is more common in young mothers. If there is an agr group that is unable to care for kids it is the younger families due to economic issues. The older mothers I know are all great mothers. I can not say the same for the folks I know who had kids in their early 20s and teens. No surprise there when teenagers and those in their early 20s are still mentally developing and figuring it all out. Is there a risk for older moms? Yes, but it isn't near as bad as the media would like you have you believe.

Basically all complaints come down to complaints on how the Govt. is inefficiently operating. Only when the people insist on a Govt. that operates for the benefit of the average citizen will these problems ever go away. I still believe that best hope for all, is to do what a super computer recommends; one programmed to deal with any problem based on what is best for the average citizen. Not able to be bribed, able to make billions of decisions per minute...compare that to people. You feed in the problem.....ten seconds later you have your best solution. Try to get the politicians to agree to that. Look at all the Govt. departments eliminated. Problems on people losing jobs? Feed it into the computer.

Yes Japan needs more children. What we don't need is a bunch of women old enough to be grannies having them

Actually, another way to solve this problem is to start letting foreign people become Japanese citizens to increase the population. But the issue that I see will come out of this is the prejudice that thwy will face for not being "ethnically" Japanese.

So it can be either giving money for older women to have IVF to increase the population, make it easier for women to have children as some have addressed, or make it easier for foreigners to become full Japanese citizens. I imagine if these questions were discussed by the J-Gov, I am sure that they chose the money option. .

tmarieAug. 21, 2013 - 12:57PM JST

Oh and abortions are free in many other countries. Just like IVF.

Would you teach me the country where an abortion or IVF is free? I am pretty much interested in how that could be possible, and how the birth rate is affected by the free medical treatment.

IVF is their last chance.

On the contrary, most of them had any number of chances to conceive naturally while they were still young and fertile. They just didn't feel like doing it then. I've met them. I've heard their stories.

@Tessa

Oh you mean the small group of people you happen to have spoken to about this.

@falseflagsteve

Do you really think anyone who suddenly opts for IVF in her forties has seriously been trying to conceive naturally for the past two decades? I don't know one single case like this, and I bet you don't either. As has been pointed out above, the procedure has a very high failure rate and two to three times the risk of producing babies with serious birth defects. It has even been described by one expert as "a mass experiment on infertile people."

Cos, thank you. But is there any limit to the age of the women for the free IVF in France? I mean, is it possible for a women to have IVF even in 50s and 60s?

But is there any limit to the age of the women for the free IVF in France?

No, as if they do it, it's covered by social security. Now, is there a limit to do IVF ? I think they let doctors judge. Even if you are 20 and they think you have no chances, they may refuse, that's like any other prescription for a treatment. Trying up to 45 is common these days and success rate is much higher than it used to be. And there is no increase of the number of abnormal children.

I mean, is it possible for a women to have IVF even in 50s and 60s?

After menopause that would be with donated eggs. But they don't do it at these ages in France. The media reported cases of women going abroad to do it in their 50's.

. I've heard their stories.

You work at which clinic ?

Recently I've had casual conversations

Of high scientific value. Sure.

with many women having the last of their three, four or more children well into middle age.

My own grandmother had her last kid naturally at 45

You notice the common factor here....their last or late children being born in middle age, with their first children born much earlier. The women lining up for treatment are trying to have their first child. If you remain childless until your early 40s, fertility tends to have dropped off a cliff. IVF successfully resulting in a live birth comprises only 5-7% . The rate of birth defects doubles (8% vs. 4% in your 20s) and there are solid statistics supporting the fact that the chance of autism also skyrockets in your 40s.

tmarie, it's not a lie or a scare tactic to inform women that they have a nearly doubled chance of having a child with Down's Syndrome after 35. It's proven. Surely you don't think they should be left in the dark and take a chance with the consequences.

That fertility starts to drop at 27, and falls off a cliff at 40-42 is an unpleasant truth, but it is the truth. Going to take the Japanese tact of 'a lid on something that stinks'?

Israel offers free IVF, as does Britain. I can't find info on other EU countries. In Britain, the treatment is free, but you're on a waiting list for up to two years to get it.

Of high scientific value. Sure.

Don't need to rely on casual conversations to figure out that most people are woefully ignorant of the basic facts of biology. According to a US survey last year, "two-thirds of women and 81% of men believed that female fertility did not markedly decline until after the age of 40. One-third of women and nearly half of men believed this decline occurred after the age of 44 – an age at which an IVF cycle is almost certainly destined to fail."

Trying up to 45 is common these days and success rate is much higher than it used to be.

How can a global failure rate of 77% (2012) be regarded as a "success?" And that figure shoots up to 95% in women in their forties.

IVF, as far as I can see, is now being regarded as a lifestyle option by people who are completely ignorant of the limits of science and biology. It's not one that I'm prepared to fund for anyone else.

.

IVF is lucrative. It's a business, a big and growing one.

I agree but it's more controlled than nuclear plants. Babies can be counted. They can't hide so much.

I doubt that a 30-35 % success rate is typical.

It is.

The HFEA (Human Fertilization & Embryology Authority, http://www.ivf-worldwide.com/) gives the average success rates from 2005 for each age group as: 29.6% for women under 35 years old; 23.6% for women aged 35 - 37 years old; 18.2% for women aged 38 - 39 years old; 10.0% for women aged 40 - 42 years old; 3.2% for women aged 43 - 44 years old; 0.8% for women aged over 44 years.

It's per try. Over the world, for simple IVF. . Those that fail 3 cycles of simple IVF, particularly older women, then try special IVF with egg selection. If that fails, they can do it with eggs from donors. I have seen 80% rate over 3 cycles for donor's eggs, any age. Japan is said to currently have about 60% success rate for under 40, and 45% for aged 40 to 45.

And I actually DO know people who are undergoing treatment who HAVE been trying for well over a decade. Unable to get up the duff and a few have had miscarriages that have caused a lot of heartache

They are those with the less chances of success after 40, as they have some complicated condition. But science progresses. New techniques arrive every 5 years. A cousin got married at 18 and they had tried to have babies probably even before. They started worrying in their mid 20's and tried treatments there was nothing that worked. Ten years later, they tried again, new techniques, no success. At 40, she had given up the idea. Then her doctor called to say they had a new drug for her condition. She took it and got 3 "natural" pregnancies at 43 to 47.

certain docs resort to borderline shady tactics to inflate their success rates

You know people that were given false babies ? As you can see stats per age group exist.

(for example performing the procedure on relatively young, healthy women in their thirties).

If they were healthy, they wouldn't need it. But isn't that a good thing that they treat them as young as possible when they have more chances with the cheaper simpler techniques ?

This is an article about women who are infertile. It is assumed that the husbands are alright, or if they are not , they are undergoing separate treatment on their own, and of course it isn't mentioned in the article.

A quick look at any sperm bank's page will reveal the donor cut off date. Why should it be published in the media? The sperm bank will tell a donor he's too old. A testosterone patch to increase sperm production and a pill for motility is a LOT less expensive than IVF, perhaps that's why it's not such an issue?

Last year in Japan 135,000 subsidies were handed out for treatments.

An average of 7250 babies are born annually as a result of these subsidised treatments.

I wouldn't call that wildly successful, to be honest. Wildly expensive is more like it.

Here's a story from England-

"The husband and wife from Berkshire applied for funding for IVF in June, after three years trying unsuccessfully to start a family. NHS Berkshire East Primary Care trust (PCT) refused to pay, because the woman, aged 37, was too old to meet their criteria - which is to only fund treatment for women between the ages of 30 and 34. The case is thought to be the first attempt to sue the Health Secretary directly over decisions about NHS rationing, and the first time that age discrimination laws have been used to fight for fertility treatment. Although national guidelines say women should be funded for treatment up to the age of 39, local PCTs can set their own restrictions, leaving a postcode lottery across the country."

Do you think the politicians just make up a number? Good...

That's what they do. (BTW, if you could you stop the religious slur... )

Because what I say doesn't back up your views,

Absolutely. My view of a doctor is someone that does a check up on the patient (for fertility that could be a follicular testing) in order to determine how healthy he/she is, and what chances of whatever... and not a robot checking a stat per age chart to declare "you're born in that year, you have that age, your hair should be white now... it's not ? you're weird. Start dying it anyway. ".

It's not a matter of it being cheaper, you were saying that the Japanese age limit of 42 was discrimination or some such yesterday, yes, here it is-

"I am looking at evil discrimination by putting an age cap on subsidies. I am also looking how women are being scapegoated here. "

In Britain it depends on the health provider, but it seems to be up till 37 for multiple tries and even places that let women over 40 have treatment, they get only one shot at it.

" The husband and wife from Berkshire applied for funding for IVF in June, after three years trying unsuccessfully to start a family.

NHS Berkshire East Primary Care trust (PCT) refused to pay, because the woman, aged 37, was too old to meet their criteria - which is to only fund treatment for women between the ages of 30 and 34. "

I agree it is "messed" up but at the same time, it's "only" a million. How many women wouldn't have problems and would create a new taxpayer for Japan? We certainly pay more in taxes than a million yen. In the long run, it's better to provide the service for free than not. More specialist, more companies all based around this industry. I've got friends in their 30-early 40s who are TERRIFIED to have kids because they are worried about having one with special needs. the scare campaign is doing just that - scaring women who might have perfectly normal babies into having none at all - or perhaps, waiting until there is more of a potential of having kids with problems but they can then afford the tests. Test should be free. Having a baby should be free. It isn't in this country which is pathetic and shocking when you look at how much we pay into the system and how much Japan needs kids.

i think a lot of you are missing the point. why is the gov't subsidizing IVF treatment in the first place?!?! no wonder this country's finances are in such a horrible state.

Cleo, I fully support adoption but let's be honest, Japan does not. Dirty blood and all the other bollocks that goes on with adoption here is shocking and sad.

I'm glad you had a good time and that your daughter is enjoying it. I know a few women - Japanese and foreign - who have stated that it isn't fun. I also know more than a few foreign females/families who have moved because of it not being a good place to be a mom - their words, not mine. I think there is more that could be done to help mothers here. From where I sit, it looks like a rather lonely existance if you don't live by family and friends - thinking of women who moved to be with their partner. I know more than a handful of families here who have returned to their hometowns when the wife got pregnant because they were not happy to be mothers in a new city and deal with the stress of playgroups and the like. I think there is support out there but I think from many it is not enough. Same in many other places - have a friend who just moved to a new country and had a baby who is dealing with the same issues.

it looks like a rather lonely existance if you don't live by family and friends

Family at a distance can't be helped, but what's to stop people making friends wherever they are? Having a tiny in tow is a great catalyst for making like-minded/similarly placed friends. Dunno what you mean by the 'stress' of playgroups, either; an opportunity to let junior play with his/her peers while mum gets to compare notes with other mums. What exactly do you think could be done to help mothers here? The state isn't going to provide friends.

Ridiculous. 42 year olds and older have just as much right to have subsidised treatment so they can have kids as any other age group. i have plenty of friends who have been career or good times orientated thru their 20's and 30's and are finally deciding to settle down with "Mr Right" and have a kid or 2. the Government should absolutely pay them to do this.

IVF should be free to couples who have been trying for a child for a certain period of time and without age limit. However, this costs a large amount of money from the taxpayer. If a couple want a child this way, sure provide for free but they must sign a contract that they will not be allowed subsidised childcare. A child is better at home with a family member, preferable the mother anyway. By subsidising child care, lower paid parents or particulary single mothers pay less tax than they receive in state benefit, thus there is no reason for them to work and are a burden to the average person.

@ Tessa,

No doubt you would also object about free abortions and child care as these are also lifestyle choices.

@Tessa

Abortion has more risks than IVF and childcare is also a risk to many children. I don't think many people consider IVF a lifestyle choice, most are desperate and IVF is their last chance. I would prefer taxes spent on helping create life than ending it and encouraging promiscuity.

Why not support the women who HAVE worked, who ARE paying their way on something like this?

Why? Because it's throwing money down the drain, that's why. Let's say that a 42-year-old woman has a - let's be generous - 10% chance of conceiving thru IVF (realistically it's far less than that). What are her chances of conceiving within six subsidised cycles? Help me with the maths here.

In the article, it states that 79,000 women received subsidised treatments last year. Mysteriously no mention of a success rate. Does anyone know? I'd love to know.

Doc also said IVF success rate is virtually the same as that if a couple try to conceive naturally - around 30-35%

IVF is lucrative. It's a business, a big and growing one. Naturally it's in the doc's best interest to paint it in a good light, and apparently certain docs resort to borderline shady tactics to inflate their success rates (for example performing the procedure on relatively young, healthy women in their thirties). Of course this doesn't detract from the joy that you receive from your child, and you must feel very grateful to the doctor, but I doubt that a 30-35 % success rate is typical.

Before a woman undergoes IVF, the man is tested as well. No use in a woman undergoing IVF if her husband is shooting blanks, is there? It's not about 'blame' (so sick of this word being bandied about as a way to refute criticism of weak arguments). The cut off for male sperm donation to a sperm bank is 41, so yes there is a cut off for men. Many women want a baby with their husband's sperm, there are treatments a man can undergo if he is the origin of the infertility to improve motility. Quantities of sperm can also be extracted for IVF.

This is an article about women who have been proven infertile and their treatment.

What's a religious slur? It's an exclamation.....

The cutoff in Britain is 34. The Japanese cut off is much kinder.

I think allot of people are missing the point here. It is already dangerous for a woman after 35 to have children. The risk of mental illness and other disabilities becomes higher after 35 as well as a woman's fertility after 40 becomes lower.

And If you have IVF, an increased risk of cancer for mom too. Of which treatment will be on the taxpayer.

The problem for me is when the government start using taxpayers money to fund nonsense Like lung cancer treament for smokers? LIke emergency care for drunk drivers? Where do you draw the line?

Oh and abortions are free in many other countries. Just like IVF. Japan however is pretty damn clear that women are inferior and this is reflected in the health care system here. Like I said, it should be free to have a baby in this country but it isn't. Nor are epideral, various testings - such as one for those over 35 - which is a fine reason WHY women are not so keen on having kids here.

Tmarie ...

No, the only way to get that to happen is to offer more support to women (and families) - be it fertility treatment, daycare, mat leave, child bonuses, having better work/life balances...

I agree with this - these things would be lovely. Not just for women though, but for the daddies as well.

Have a kid here and your life is pretty much over because that is how society here is set up. Women don't want to give up what they have these days. Why blame them when the men here really don't give up anything after having a kid.

Why should they - they are working because the women of this country generally want to become housewifes when they get married, even if they do not have kids. If they don't work, and the women don't want to work, how are they going to survive?

If women need IVF, to conceive A child, at age 42, then the chance of a sibling is practically non-existent. I'd like your stats on that please. Rubbish.

Not rubbish - biology. Fertility decreases with age, even more so after age 40.

If you need IVF to conceive your first child at age 40, its because your fertility has already decreased so much that its difficult to have a child naturally. You need 10 months to grow the baby, another minimum of 6 weeks post partum to resume your menstrual cycle before you even begin to think about having a second. If you are breastfeeding, often this doesn't happen until you stop, which can be at 1 or even 2 years after having your child. By that point the woman could be 42 or 43, and her fertility is even further decreased that it was at age 40.

Usagito, that is also rubbish. There are tests, as I mentioned, that can help determine the chances of having a child with a disability. Younger women also suffer PPD and actually if you look at stats, chidl abuse is more common in young mothers. If there is an agr group that is unable to care for kids it is the younger families due to economic issues. The older mothers I know are all great mothers. I can not say the same for the folks I know who had kids in their early 20s and teens. No surprise there when teenagers and those in their early 20s are still mentally developing and figuring it all out. Is there a risk for older moms? Yes, but it isn't near as bad as the media would like you have you believe.

A child with a disability like downs, yes. But conditions like Autism are only diagnosed when the child is older.

Younger women can also suffer PPD, but it is becoming more and more common among older women. I don't blame them really, It must be exhausting trying to care for a newborn when your 40+, and used to a life where you only need to think about yourself. I have never studied the issue academically, but a quick look around the Japan today news stories show that many, if not most of, of the child abuse cases we see here are caused by women who had their kids at not such a young age.

Just as a side note - I've met some pretty horrible mothers in my time, and I cant say fairly I would be able to assign them to one particular age group. Some are younger, some are older, and some are very old. However, the thing about all mothers is, with a younger one, the chances of her dying early are much lower than someone who has their child in her 40s.

Thats the thing about these older women who have kids, that really gets me. Its a selfish decision. They know that the child will possibly suffer as a result, because of their age, their health problems, possible health problems the child will have, the bullying at school, and having to care for them when they are old, but the child is still fairly young. They don't think about the fact that the child will probably, when it grows up, have no help raising its own children, because the grandparents are already too old to help out. These are all things I think older mothers do not think about, when undergoing the IVF at age 40 whatever. I

Fertility is indeed an absolute but those 7250 babies born via IVF is an indication that there is still hope, no?

So 135000 subsidies, which makes 7250 pretty much a 5% rate of success ... I do get your argument about having to pay for smokers cancer, alcoholics liver disease, I really do. BUT I doubt in this country there are many medical treatments that would be approved when they have, on average, a 5% chance of success?

Also, it is worth noting, that the rate of pregnancy is much higher than this statistic. HOWEVER the very vast majority of these embryos will miscarriage spontaneously.

I'm tired of the defeatist bachans. Now if you want your grand-kids to live in a Japan going back to 17th century, yes, let's kill all hopes of progress.

it most likely will not work, as determined by medical testing!

I would prefer that the medical testing to be done by the fertility doctors, and not by the politicians that are also doing the expert testing Fukushima. I have no problem with doctors turning away a patient from certain treatments due to the condition of the patient and the fertility potential they measure. The calendar age is not a criteria. For starting menstruation, there can be about a decade of difference, and for menopause, there can 2 decades of difference between individual women, and they are not even special cases.

As I said above, the rate for birth defects for children of those over 40 with IVF is 8%, double the natural rate.

Remind us which clinic employs you, doctor ? There is no flat "natural rate" anyway. That may depends on how far from Fukushima you raise your kid. The technology progresses at lowering the risks too. You may not have heard about it, but we are in an age where many couple without fertility issues, but with family or personal case of birth defect babies, are using IVF in order to get more chances to have a healthier baby than naturally. If we don't let women try it, there won't be any progress.

An age cap on subsidies is NOT discrimination. Jesus.

It's what ?

After age 42, the success rate (live births per one cycle) is 6-7% (despite your friends who seem to be above the curve).

There is a difference between " friends being above the curve" and the cheapest Japanese clinics being 15 years behind for the IVF techniques. We can't blame them for not adopting the most modern technology overnight. That takes a delay to train doctors, so they start with a few elite clinics. What could be done would be sending the most complicated cases to these clinics in priority. The second reason that slows the progress is the Japanese system is usually taking a loooong time to approve anything about gynecology (the pill took decades, the epidural several years, viagra got the YES hanko within 10 minutes). The third is money. The most advanced IVF, with egg selection is much more expensive. Instead of 300 000 yen, it's 1 to 2 millions. When you do the addition, as the new technique is so much more efficient (like 60%), it's resulting cheaper. If you pay all yourself (and you can afford it). you don't lose time doing rounds of the standard methods when you're over 40. Wealthy people have more chances. The subsidy is not given without conditions, they are not letting the choice, they have to take the standard... or without that money, they can't afford anything.

the possible introduction of one-off payments.

That might allow some to get a more suitable treatment.

a baby that isn't biologically related to you?

So what ? That depends on people. Carrying and nurturing the baby in the womb and maybe breastfeeding is a biological relation. The donor can be a relative. That's more like giving blood than like giving a kidney, so if you have a younger sister, cousin, niece, it's easy to arrange. And there are women that consider their partner is related to them and they want to carry his/her baby to give him a chance to have his genetic children. Of course, you can prefer that he makes a kid with another woman, like the Mormons, take a sister wife. I'm for free choice.

Might as well adopt, no?

That depends on people. Surely Americans have no issue with purchasing a baby from miserable Third-World family has been convinced to put on the market, or the disabled baby of some Russian alcoholics and drug addicts, that they may even send back if not satisfied. But that's not for everybody.

So 135000 subsidies, which makes 7250 pretty much a 5% rate of success ...

5% would not even be bad. But you've decided that was a failure so you read figures in that sense. I can understand the ethical opposition but negating it's a huge medical success is becoming ridiculous. We're aiming at 3% of IVF born babies in a few countries. The article says 79 000 not 135 000. And a treatment lasts several years in average, so the mothers are counted several times in the 79 000.

Would you: Fly on an airline with a 6% success rate?

You have figures about series of deaths due to IVF ? No, that doesn't kill the women and that doesn't make miscarriages worse than naturally. That's surely better for a woman and her couple to have tried and failed, than to stay the rest of life with the doubt "what if we had tried ?". That doesn't ruin the Japanese medical system. Even if 1 million of 45 yr old women were getting the subsidy, that would still be a small budget compared to the millions of senile patients that cost as much per year, over decades, with 0% success rate.

Buy stock with a 94% chance of tanking?

I'd invest in the venture capital with 1% chances of reward, but my last yen is already in my own business with 0.05% chances. As a student, I've taken entrance exams with 1% to 5% chances. That was (and that's still) even worse when looking for a job. When you start a business, you also have 80% of chances to fail within 3 years. If you run a marathon with many people, you get microscopic chances too win. And the chances are low because so many other crazies try it. We're not talking about fighting a lion in the arena. You don't die if you fail. But if you don't try anything in life, that's like being dead already.

Isn't Britian cheaper though? Sorry folks, would love to answer questions but the mod keeps deleting every post I have made to answer questions.

Tessa, yes, a baby! A chance at creating a new life. More taxpayers. This country needs to be doing all it can in that department.

Was it just age? They also have a size limit.

Like there is no shortage of children here. Stupid.

Personally, I don't give a crap about when people have their children if they are having them at their own cost. As most are.

The problem for me is when the government start using taxpayers money to fund nonsense like IVF for over 40 year olds - which is A - NOT a medical procedure and B - Has a very low chance of success. Women who have babies after age 40 also are much more likely to give birth to children with birth defects, which is another bill the taxpayer has to pick up. I just do not understand why older mothers are being promoted - the negatives far outweigh the positives.

The 20 year old has to pay for the abortion herself, and so should the 40 year old who wants a baby via IVF. My point is its all individual choice and responsibility - and they should have to pay it themselves, like the women in this country who give birth to kids at a sensible age, have to pay it themselves. So why should we give women IVF free? Its completely insane.

Also I am very passionate about the fact this country needs to promote adoption much more. I would hope they would have done this before even thinking about giving IVF out willy nilly to 40+ year olds.

Therefore it is completely reasonable that a woman in her early to mid 40s could be a grandma.

So? I have a friend who was a grandmother at 36. I'll let you guess that kind of family she is from - her having a kid at 16 and that child having a kid at 16. They cost a heck of a lot more from taxpayers than say 1 million for a 42 year old woman with a stable job and a decent ecucation to have a child.

The average age of marriage is around 30, however a significant amount of women choose NOT to have children soon after marriage, instead choosing a life of lulling around the home, possibly with a pet dog, and spending their husbands salary on lunches with friends, holidays abroad and shopping.

While I can't stand these women, have you ever thought that the reason is that they can't afford a kid or can't get pregnant? Or perhaps have been pushed out of a job or don't get mat leave? I am living proof of a professional woman who has a decent job, way more pay than your average J woman but was in a job without benefits like mat leave. I refused to quit and have kids because there would be pretty ZERO way for me to get back into work due to the daycare situation here. I certainly do not like and support the type of woman you outlibned but guess what, a woman's "job" isn't just to procreate. We have a choice and many of these women are looking at the life here in Japan with a kid and are seeing that it is pretty crappy. Yes, Japan only has its self to blame but these women are refusing for pretty damn good reasons in my opinion. How many kids do you have??

I think allot of people are missing the point here. It is already dangerous for a woman after 35 to have children. The risk of mental illness and other disabilities becomes higher after 35 as well as a woman's fertility after 40 becomes lower. There are lower chances of getting pregnant and you still have to pay the bill whether you get pregnant or not I believe. This isn't about not helping the declining birth rate it's about helping people not waste their money and maybe even possibly lower chances of mental and physical disability. I have also seen my fair share of mothers in their 40's unable to care for their kids properly and end up suffering severely from postpartum and killing their kids too or being so over protective of them they can't leave them at pre school without screaming fits between mother and child as I have witnessed at my own school.

Would you teach me the country where an abortion or IVF is free? I am pretty much interested in how that could be possible, and how the birth rate is affected by the free medical treatment.

UK, France and Canada. Immigration is the big booster for population growth in both countries. As I said, the more educated the woman, the later and fewer the kids.

Since when did IVF, an expensive treatment with a high failure rate and many unknown risks, become something akin to picking out a new sofa? And why should I have to help pay for it? When women started taking "control" of their fertility, not falling for the whole "you must get married" crap. If my taxes have to pay for cancer medical care for a smoker, I don't see how this is really any different - except cheaper and short term.

And got help me, I agree with Steve on something - and disagree with Tessa. The world is ending. Tessa, sure I could've physically gotten pregnant for years on end but you know why I haven't? Because I wasn't in a decent relationship, didn't get mat leave and couldn't afford to have a kid on my own - nor do/did I want one. Plenty of women out there in the same boat. You and I both moan about the SAHW who don't pay taxes and the like. Why not support the women who HAVE worked, who ARE paying their way on something like this? This certainly costs a lot less than than pension and health care for those we dislike.

And I actually DO know people who are undergoing treatment who HAVE been trying for well over a decade. Unable to get up the duff and a few have had miscarriages that have caused a lot of heartache. As Cleo said, adoption but let's be honest, this country is horrid in that area.

Himan, a little more reading on the topic. The numbers aren't near as bad as the media makes it out to be. The issues with conceiving don't actually go down as drastically until after 40, not that magically "35" many seem to claim. New reports/research is coming out with this. Indeed, there is a risk but there is a risk anyway. There is a risk with smoking and cancer and yet the government covers treatment...

Btw, for you to call women who are around 40 " a bunch women old enough to be grannies" is clearly ignorant and condescending.

Except for the simple fact that they are old enough to be grannies. My grandmother was a grandmother at 40. And he does have a point that it would be better if younger women were mothers. My problem is that I don't see rerouting the IVF money accomplishing that goal. As it so happens, Japanese women don't want to have babies when young. And for those who do, a bit of extra money is not going to create enough space in a house to fit another kid. Thus, if the goal is more kids, best not to be so stingy with such absolutist rules.

I'm thinking a million or two to create future taxpayers would be great.

As for commenting about how taxes are spent, I could rant for hours about it,. However, this is a topic about stopping a process at 42.

Perhaps some of you might like to read this. I've read some about it and it is all about stats and figures and how many are read wrong. The "myth of 35" is addresses in it. http://www.amazon.com/Expecting-Better-Conventional-Pregnancy-Wrong/dp/1594204756/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Oh, I've also had a friend who at 41 at IVF and it took the first time. A lovely baby boy. Friend at 36. Lovely baby boy. Sure, risks involved but any pregnancy carries risks.

I have to ask, is there an age limit on the men who can "donate"? This all seems to be focused on women but men's sperm also have issues with increasing age. Perhaps the two together are the issues? Why no mention of that? Ah yes, blame the women. It's easier that way.

I'm not talking about blanks. The quality from a man deteriorates over times as well. I see nothing mentioned here, nor in or media outlets, that discusses this. Do you have links to where it states a man is cut off at 41? Why isn't that gaining attention? It IS an article about women, where are the articles about men?

You're sick of the blame game? Perhaps you could take a look at this thread and see what people are saying about women - clearly blaming women for not having kids in their 20s.

If his sperm are deformed or not good in some way, I don't see the procedure proceeding.

So you don't actually know, right? Define alright? In my opinion if a woman has been deemed okay for IVF, then she too must be "alright", no?

I am looking at evil discrimination by putting an age cap on subsidies. I am also looking how women are being scapegoated here.

Fertility is indeed an absolute but those 7250 babies born via IVF is an indication that there is still hope, no?

Don't want strangers to pay? You do get how taxes work, right? I'm currently propping up schools while I have no kids, smoker's cancer treatment while I don't smoke, pensions for people who haven't paid a penny into the pot. The whole tax system works on strangers paying for things. Why cut the funding to this when you could cut it elsewhere that is clearly a waste of money. 7250 taxpayers born who might not have been born if it wasn't for subsidies.

Calvin - why not use that money instead to help young, healthy women of childbearing age afford to have 2 or 3 kids, instead of a 40 year old who has left it too late to have one?

Actually, fertility rapidly declines after age 35 in women, so actually I am in favour of no fertility treatment for anyone over 40. This change is going to effect a couple of women a year at best. IVF at age 40+ has a very, very low chance of success (less than 10%) because the eggs are just too old.

Yes Japan needs more children. What we don't need is a bunch of women old enough to be grannies having them. Women of this age having kids need more medical care (higher rates of high blood pressure, diabetes, c-section and death) and their children are more likely to have conditions like autism or abnormalities caused by age, like downs syndrome.

Im sorry, but In my opinion, we should be spending the money we will be flushing down the toilet on IVF for older women on helping younger married women afford to have another child.

Puzzling. Why go to all that time, trouble, expense to get pregnant with a baby that isn't biologically related to you? Might as well adopt, no?

Well people with common sense would see that as an option but this is Japan, remember?? Tainted, dirty, questionable blood and all.

Himajin, yes, the assumption that the man is alright. Hence my point. I am not talking about sperm banks, I am talking about sperm from partners of the women undergoing IVF. A 40 year old woman married to a 50 year old man wouldn't have an issue getting subsidies if I am reading this correctly, right? A 43 year old woman with a 27 year old husband would not. See the issue?

Japan is so set on blaming women for the lack of kids being born here that they are not addressing many of the issues here that revolve around men - lack of stability, not helping at home, working endless hours... These issues are created by the men of Japan. Rather than address these issues, they blame and scorn women who heaven forbid, put off having kids until they were financially stable or wanted one. All while the men waste money on Olympic bids, helping TEPCO and, yes, useless construction problems.

If they are going to allow smokers to get lung cancer treatment, allow drunk drivers to get emergency medicine, why not help families who will hopefully creature future taxpayers?

Marcelito. I am also not disputing that the old boys club mentality in this country is a complete freaking joke. Thats another discussion.

However the optimum age to make a baby is in your early twenties. This is biology. Therefore it is completely reasonable that a woman in her early to mid 40s could be a grandma. If you look at the other end of the spectrum (IE - the "gyaru" and yankii type families who are the only ones procreating at an early age) the grandmas are often early forties. I have a friend who has three kids, his first at age 19, and he became a grandfather for the first time at age 41. THIS is biologically normal. However socially it is not, nowadays.

And as for your assumption that women wait to be economically secure - what a load of tripe. In America, or UK maybe. But in Japan no. You just have to look at the number of married couples living off a single salary to see that.

The average age of marriage is around 30, however a significant amount of women choose NOT to have children soon after marriage, instead choosing a life of lulling around the home, possibly with a pet dog, and spending their husbands salary on lunches with friends, holidays abroad and shopping. I would never want to generalize, but I have met many women in Japan who are early thirties, married, and fairly selfish. They would prefer a Louis Vuitton over a child. But then they hit their late thirties, after 5 years of being the "housewife without children" and start to get pressure from their parents, freak out, and then have A child later in life. Of course, having a child so late is exhausting and hard, they need a lot of help from their parents, and will often choose to not have another.

I believe the current birth rate stands at around 1.39 in Japan. To be honest, we need women to be having more children. Like 2 or 3 each. The only way to get that to happen, is to get them to have them earlier - starting in late twenties. If women need IVF, to conceive A child, at age 42, then the chance of a sibling is practically non-existent.

If the success rates decline for women over 40, why stop at 42?

As I have so often heard that Japan needs more children, why not only subsidize a certain number of treatments for anyone over 42 who can get a doctor's approval and then stop funding?