I know the older a woman gets, the greater her chances of having a child with Down's syndrome.
Are there risks like that with older fathers?|||There are loads of adverse health risks that the offspring of older father bear.
Non-verbal IQ decreases in the children of older fathers, girls do worse at earlier paternal ages. Their life expectancy goes down. Risk of sporadic autism, mental retardation, schizophrenia, cancers, diabetes 1, MS, some cerebral palsies, epilepsy, heart defects, Alzheimer's all rise in offspring as the father's age rises.
There is a great variety in where men start out genetically depending on past generations. Some offspring of very old fathers might live long and healthy lives, but no one has studied this question. They have found that daughters of men 45 and over live 6 years less than daughters of father who are younger. Gavrilovas
Dr. Dolores Malaspina wrote in 2006:
"We propose that de novo genetic alterations in the paternal germ line cause an independent and common variant of schizophrenia.
http://www.schizophreniaforum.org/for/cu鈥?/a>
Seminal findings
We initially examined the relationship between paternal age and the risk for schizophrenia because it is well established that paternal age is the major source of de novo mutations in the human population, and most schizophrenia cases have no family history of psychosis. In 2001, we demonstrated a monotonic increase in the risk of schizophrenia as paternal age advanced ...
Schizophrenia probably would become rare if men fathered all their babies by 30 and/or froze and stored semen in client depositor bank accounts for later fathering. Cryopreservation of semen has proven safe even after 21 years.|||If so, I never heard of any risks.|||no i dont think so . i wasnt warned of any risks and my husband is 14 years older than i am. however they say that the later in life that you have kids, the brainier the child|||no.|||If both parents are over the age 40 the chances are very good for having a downs child and an autistic child. If the women is over 40 Downs is likely.If the father is the older one and the wife is still under 40 the risk is not elevated.|||Yes, as men get older adverse risks increase. One increased risk is the chance for Autism. There is also risk for DNA damage in the sperm. Pleny of info, just search the net "older men fathering children"|||No. I believe that Larry King has a 6 year old. Also, Anthony Quinn fathered a child when he was in his 80's.
So mature men who want to have children should go for it. The only drawback is that a loving father would want to make sure that he will be around to see his child make it to adulthood.
Best wishes!|||Not that I know of.
but the quality of parental involvement in growing up YES! what 10 year old wants their 70YO dad to show up at open house (look Johny's grandpa is here)|||yes, older men tend to have mentally-disabled children as per a study|||Apparently not. There are plenty of geriatric fathers out there with healthy kids. Plus, men continue to produce sperm all their lives, unlike women who stop ovulating in their 50's.|||My first child was born one month before I turned 56. My second 4 months before I turned 59. Both kids are now 8 and 11 and are healthy and intelligent. My wife is 17 years younger than I. That means she was 39 at the time of the first birth and 42 at the time of the second birth.|||Yes,It increases the risks but,that doesn't mean to say that it always does.If there are any concerns,a sperm check should be performed.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Does the age of the father make any difference on the health of the child?
I know the older a woman gets, the greater her chances of having a child with Down's syndrome.
Are there risks like that with older fathers?|||A lot of these answers are far from the truth. After a man is 35, if his partner is also 35 he contributes to the risk of Down Syndrome. By age 40 a man is responsible for half of the risk for having a child with Down syndrome.
As far as other conditions associated with rising father's age there are many. Mental retardation, autism, up to 1/3 of all schizophrenia, diabetes1, MS, Alzheimer's risk, prostate cancer, maybe pre-menopausal breast cancer, ALL, etc. all rise, in non-familial cases, with the age of the father at a child's conception.
As men age especially by 33-35 sperm making cells, called spermatagonia, collect mutations as they are copied over and over and over and over again. Toxins add to the mutations.
To quote one research of the paternal age effect:
It makes sense that the mutations causing these diseases would occur more frequently in older men, and indeed that's what we saw for Apert syndrome," says Ethylin Jabs, M.D., director of the Center for Craniofacial Development and Disorders at Johns Hopkins.
"Importantly, disorders linked to advancing paternal age begin to increase rapidly at about the same time as maternal risks increase -- age 33 to 35. Until now, the only evidence for paternal age effects has come from determining how many children with these diseases are born to fathers of various ages."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200鈥?/a>|||Some studies have shown that older fathers are more likely to have children with birth defects, but the cutoff age for them is much higher, you don't see many problems till they are over 55.|||Actually Downs is more closely linked with the age of the man. Although a man's sperm is "freshly made", each time new sperm is produced the same cells divide and re-divide. This means that as the man ages there is an accumulation of mutations and "copying errors" introduced into the DNA of the sperm, which means that genetic abnormalities such as Downs are more likely as the man gets older.
In contrast, a woman's eggs are already produced when she is born and are stored in her ovaries until released during her normal monthly cycle. This means that they have undergone no re-division and are less likely to carry genetic mutations from that cause.|||One of the wonders of the human man is that while women can only mother a child until a certain age, a man can father a child until the day he dies of natural causes. There are some studies that have said certain birth defects, like downs syndrome and spinabifida can be linked with the age of the father, they can also be linked with enough other causes that there's really no conclusive evidence that says one way or the other.|||Yes, the older the father is, the more likely he is to father a child with Down's. It is not as strong a correlation as it is with mother's age, but it's still there.
There is also some evidence that older fathers are more likely to father children with autism. Statistically, there is a correlation. However, it may be that men who are themselves slightly autistic are older when they have children then men who are not autistic. Even a mild case of autism can hinder a man in forming a romantic relationship, which would delay fatherhood for him. So while nonautistic men have their children in their 20s and 30s, mildly autistic men may have theirs in their 40s, 50s, and beyond, and they may pass those autistic traits on to their offspring.|||A woman's eggs are with her from birth so they age with her, but a man's sperm is renewed so it is not affected by age. When he ejaculates more sperm is created to make up for the loss.|||No it doesn't make any difference. Look at all the old guys with baby's. One of John Wayne's son's played his son in a movie He was 70 something and his son was 12 or so.It only takes 1 sperm to fertilize an egg.|||Absolutely. Some studies have shown that about a quarter of Downs Syndrome cases can be linked to the father, not mother. Usually this is the case of the father being over 50 (instead of over 35 for the mother) and is generally considered less of a connection than the mother's age, but it is a factor none the less. There are many issues related to the father's age that have yet to be determined as studies have mostly focused on mothers until recently.|||unlike women who are born with a certain number of eggs which age as the woman ages, men's sperm is freshly made with each orgasm.
Are there risks like that with older fathers?|||A lot of these answers are far from the truth. After a man is 35, if his partner is also 35 he contributes to the risk of Down Syndrome. By age 40 a man is responsible for half of the risk for having a child with Down syndrome.
As far as other conditions associated with rising father's age there are many. Mental retardation, autism, up to 1/3 of all schizophrenia, diabetes1, MS, Alzheimer's risk, prostate cancer, maybe pre-menopausal breast cancer, ALL, etc. all rise, in non-familial cases, with the age of the father at a child's conception.
As men age especially by 33-35 sperm making cells, called spermatagonia, collect mutations as they are copied over and over and over and over again. Toxins add to the mutations.
To quote one research of the paternal age effect:
It makes sense that the mutations causing these diseases would occur more frequently in older men, and indeed that's what we saw for Apert syndrome," says Ethylin Jabs, M.D., director of the Center for Craniofacial Development and Disorders at Johns Hopkins.
"Importantly, disorders linked to advancing paternal age begin to increase rapidly at about the same time as maternal risks increase -- age 33 to 35. Until now, the only evidence for paternal age effects has come from determining how many children with these diseases are born to fathers of various ages."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200鈥?/a>|||Some studies have shown that older fathers are more likely to have children with birth defects, but the cutoff age for them is much higher, you don't see many problems till they are over 55.|||Actually Downs is more closely linked with the age of the man. Although a man's sperm is "freshly made", each time new sperm is produced the same cells divide and re-divide. This means that as the man ages there is an accumulation of mutations and "copying errors" introduced into the DNA of the sperm, which means that genetic abnormalities such as Downs are more likely as the man gets older.
In contrast, a woman's eggs are already produced when she is born and are stored in her ovaries until released during her normal monthly cycle. This means that they have undergone no re-division and are less likely to carry genetic mutations from that cause.|||One of the wonders of the human man is that while women can only mother a child until a certain age, a man can father a child until the day he dies of natural causes. There are some studies that have said certain birth defects, like downs syndrome and spinabifida can be linked with the age of the father, they can also be linked with enough other causes that there's really no conclusive evidence that says one way or the other.|||Yes, the older the father is, the more likely he is to father a child with Down's. It is not as strong a correlation as it is with mother's age, but it's still there.
There is also some evidence that older fathers are more likely to father children with autism. Statistically, there is a correlation. However, it may be that men who are themselves slightly autistic are older when they have children then men who are not autistic. Even a mild case of autism can hinder a man in forming a romantic relationship, which would delay fatherhood for him. So while nonautistic men have their children in their 20s and 30s, mildly autistic men may have theirs in their 40s, 50s, and beyond, and they may pass those autistic traits on to their offspring.|||A woman's eggs are with her from birth so they age with her, but a man's sperm is renewed so it is not affected by age. When he ejaculates more sperm is created to make up for the loss.|||No it doesn't make any difference. Look at all the old guys with baby's. One of John Wayne's son's played his son in a movie He was 70 something and his son was 12 or so.It only takes 1 sperm to fertilize an egg.|||Absolutely. Some studies have shown that about a quarter of Downs Syndrome cases can be linked to the father, not mother. Usually this is the case of the father being over 50 (instead of over 35 for the mother) and is generally considered less of a connection than the mother's age, but it is a factor none the less. There are many issues related to the father's age that have yet to be determined as studies have mostly focused on mothers until recently.|||unlike women who are born with a certain number of eggs which age as the woman ages, men's sperm is freshly made with each orgasm.
If I reside in my parents' home with my child, can they cover him on their health insurance?
I'm an adult with a child, and recently was laid off from my job. I live with my parents since this hardship, and was wondering if because I reside with them, can they get him covered on their health insurance?|||health-quotes.isgreat.org - here is my health insurance plan. As I remember they can provide such a service.|||Only if they claim the child as a dependent on their taxes. Which means you won't be able to claim him.
I am 19 and under my parent's health insurance, if i have a child will they be covered under my parents?
I am only 19, a college student, and not married and under my dad's health plan. If I have a child, would I have to find other insurance or would my dad's heath plan still cover me and my child?|||No, the child would not be covered under your parents coverage unless they adopt it.|||No. Though you may be eligible to remain on a parent鈥檚 plan until age 26, they cannot add a grandchild to their policy unless they were to adopt the child legally. There are other options, however. Depending on the state in which you live, there may be an eligibility period when a newborn can be enrolled on an individual health insurance plan of his or her own. Talk with a licensed health insurance agent (online or off) to find out what鈥檚 available in your area. It doesn鈥檛 cost anything extra to work through an agent.
The new baby may also qualify for public assistance. I鈥檇 recommend contacting the non-profit Foundation for Health Coverage Education (coverageforall.org) to find out what government options are available in your area.|||I wish people would understand once and for all you do NOT have to be a student to be covered under your parents health insurance, you CAN be married, you CAN live on your own. But it does not cover any children or husband. You have to buy insurance for the child. Why do people keep mentioning they are college students when that is completely irrelevant to health insurance.|||Both you and your child will need to find other insurance. Your parent's policy will not cover the child and you can no longer get insurance just for kids under 19 without a parent also being on the policy.|||No. Your parent cannot add a GRANDCHILD to their policy, only a child. YOU, their child, can still be covered. A GRANDCHILD cannot be covered.
Consider adoption.|||Usually not the child - although your prenatal care and delivery would be covered. However, only your parents can confirm the exact coverage of their group plan.
The new baby may also qualify for public assistance. I鈥檇 recommend contacting the non-profit Foundation for Health Coverage Education (coverageforall.org) to find out what government options are available in your area.|||I wish people would understand once and for all you do NOT have to be a student to be covered under your parents health insurance, you CAN be married, you CAN live on your own. But it does not cover any children or husband. You have to buy insurance for the child. Why do people keep mentioning they are college students when that is completely irrelevant to health insurance.|||Both you and your child will need to find other insurance. Your parent's policy will not cover the child and you can no longer get insurance just for kids under 19 without a parent also being on the policy.|||No. Your parent cannot add a GRANDCHILD to their policy, only a child. YOU, their child, can still be covered. A GRANDCHILD cannot be covered.
Consider adoption.|||Usually not the child - although your prenatal care and delivery would be covered. However, only your parents can confirm the exact coverage of their group plan.
Can they still drop my child from my health insurance because of age?
They will drop the child for the time being. The actuaries need time to figure an appropriate premium adjustment. That portion of the bill goes into effect 9/23/10. The child will be able to get back on the policy when it renews after that date. That means that if your policy renews September 1 they can't get back on until September 2011.|||You have to check with your insurance company about their current policy because the new health care law has not taken effect yet and no one has the rules and regulations set up. No insurance companies do not have to keep them covered if they have reached the maximum age. The policies will undoubtedly have different coverage if the adult child has to be put on and premiums have to increase. But you have the choice of not putting your child on your policy because they also must be your dependent and that would exclude someone working full time or filing their own tax return or having group insurance at work.|||Yes, they drop them now, and add them back on later - assuming the legislation doesn't get repealled.|||Yes...your child is not allowed to be on your insurance for forever!
How much doyou pay for your child's health insurance in tx?
I am trying to get health coverage for my 4 month old and they are giving me the run around. she is right on track as far as her health and development and has all her vaccines up to date.....all i can find is plans costing ~$300 for just her. |||That's about right, because that first year, the checkups and shots are really expensive, and add up fast. After she's two, she should be able to find coverage around $200 a month.
Rather than shopping directly, though, go to a local agent. They can help you balance coverage with pricing, by taking plans with deductibles.
|||Have you tried a CHIP program? You're about right on the money for the average cost of healthcare. Can you get insurance through your job? If not then try Unicare.com, they have a competing list of insurance based on your preferences such as smaller copay/bigger deductible and so forth.|||$300 is way too expensive unless you want a plan that has no deductible or a very low deductible.
You could very easily find an affordable Texas children's health insurance plan for under $200 if you shop around.
Just be sure to stick with the large and trustworthy TX companies like BCBS of TX, Aetna, United Healthcare, UniCare, etc. Here is some more information on finding children's health insurance and also some info specifically on finding health insurance in Texas:
Rather than shopping directly, though, go to a local agent. They can help you balance coverage with pricing, by taking plans with deductibles.
|||Have you tried a CHIP program? You're about right on the money for the average cost of healthcare. Can you get insurance through your job? If not then try Unicare.com, they have a competing list of insurance based on your preferences such as smaller copay/bigger deductible and so forth.|||$300 is way too expensive unless you want a plan that has no deductible or a very low deductible.
You could very easily find an affordable Texas children's health insurance plan for under $200 if you shop around.
Just be sure to stick with the large and trustworthy TX companies like BCBS of TX, Aetna, United Healthcare, UniCare, etc. Here is some more information on finding children's health insurance and also some info specifically on finding health insurance in Texas:
Are Dems reviving the Child Health Care bill, just to give the MSM a chance to print Bush "rejects" children?
It won't pass, but if it gives the papers a chance to say Bush and Republicans deny health care for children over and over again, it serves them a purpose. I hope people see through the deception.|||What deception? Congress passes a BI-PARTISAN bill, backed by a majority of the citizenry, and Bush vetos it, hence, he denies children health care.
That's called, the TRUTH. It's pretty simple logic. Oh wait, I just used 2 words the retardicans don't understand...Logic and Truth.
And please, bereal1 and the rest, read the bill. It doesn't grant benefits up to $80K for everyone! Only New York state requested special consideration for that threshold, and the bill allows the govt. to say "no" to the request, so it's not a blanket approval. Get informed!|||Why not? If Bush can piss away hundreds of billions of dollars for Iraq he can find money for children's health care. You're forgetting that there was a great deal of republican for the bill last time. The house was only 10 votes short of successfully overriding the presidents veto.|||Why does Bush hate kids so much?|||Just read the responses you get on this and know that most little kids DON'T see the deception. You will see Olbermann's rant on this repeated verbatim on here in a few days.|||It is just playing politics, only this time it makes the Republicans look bad because it has to do with children. The truth is, poor kids do have health care and this program is a step towards poor quality socialized medicine. The people who support this bill have just made it into a emotional game.|||Trust me, the people don't get it... All anyone has to do is read some of the questions on Y/A , let a lone the responses, to see how little people are willing to actually look at the facts... They could care less NO appropriations bill has been passed (first time in 20yrs!!!) VA days coming up and the Dem's are sitting on that bill.... Meanwhile people want to point at Bush when the Dem's new SCHIP bill calls for greater spending , less help for the ones the bill was actually written for (the poor),still includes children up to age 26(hmmmm.......)and includes households up to $80,0000. Bush said he wouldn't pass the last one.. Why would he pass this one... Of course this is all Democratic grandstanding with no thought or care for those it actually effects.... Nothing new.. :(|||you bet ye, no child left behind either.|||It's just the every-four-year scare tactics used by the Democrats over and over..."Republicans want the elderly to die in the streets," "Republicans want little kids on school lunch and breakfast programs to starve," "Republicans want to give more money to the rich on the backs of the poor," and now "Republicans want kids to get sick and die with no health care." The usual demagoguery, just a new schtick.|||yes, its already started again "why do republicans hate children", "why do republicans want children to die" - give it a break, if the dems would push a bill that extended the current program bush would pass it, instead they are knowingly sending him bills that they know he will veto.|||no dems are reviving it because it is a good bill|||Another good question is why they keep reviving all the bills that have been voted down - like the Dream Act that shows up more often than Freddy Kruger.
I think they are pandering to a constituency who isn't supposed to be allowed to vote.|||I think you may have a point.
Look what went on with the wild fires this past week. ; )|||Yes. They have become "Stark," raving mad! Bush must hate children because, according to the Dems, he wants to see their heads blown off. And you liberals still want to vote for these Democrat nutcases?|||Perhaps they're just tired of seeing their constituent families sinking into a financial hole because of lack of health care?
And many, many Republicans support the S-CHIP, as well. It's just right-wing partisan goose-steppers that whine that it's "socialism" and regurgitate the lie that it covers "rich" families.
That's called, the TRUTH. It's pretty simple logic. Oh wait, I just used 2 words the retardicans don't understand...Logic and Truth.
And please, bereal1 and the rest, read the bill. It doesn't grant benefits up to $80K for everyone! Only New York state requested special consideration for that threshold, and the bill allows the govt. to say "no" to the request, so it's not a blanket approval. Get informed!|||Why not? If Bush can piss away hundreds of billions of dollars for Iraq he can find money for children's health care. You're forgetting that there was a great deal of republican for the bill last time. The house was only 10 votes short of successfully overriding the presidents veto.|||Why does Bush hate kids so much?|||Just read the responses you get on this and know that most little kids DON'T see the deception. You will see Olbermann's rant on this repeated verbatim on here in a few days.|||It is just playing politics, only this time it makes the Republicans look bad because it has to do with children. The truth is, poor kids do have health care and this program is a step towards poor quality socialized medicine. The people who support this bill have just made it into a emotional game.|||Trust me, the people don't get it... All anyone has to do is read some of the questions on Y/A , let a lone the responses, to see how little people are willing to actually look at the facts... They could care less NO appropriations bill has been passed (first time in 20yrs!!!) VA days coming up and the Dem's are sitting on that bill.... Meanwhile people want to point at Bush when the Dem's new SCHIP bill calls for greater spending , less help for the ones the bill was actually written for (the poor),still includes children up to age 26(hmmmm.......)and includes households up to $80,0000. Bush said he wouldn't pass the last one.. Why would he pass this one... Of course this is all Democratic grandstanding with no thought or care for those it actually effects.... Nothing new.. :(|||you bet ye, no child left behind either.|||It's just the every-four-year scare tactics used by the Democrats over and over..."Republicans want the elderly to die in the streets," "Republicans want little kids on school lunch and breakfast programs to starve," "Republicans want to give more money to the rich on the backs of the poor," and now "Republicans want kids to get sick and die with no health care." The usual demagoguery, just a new schtick.|||yes, its already started again "why do republicans hate children", "why do republicans want children to die" - give it a break, if the dems would push a bill that extended the current program bush would pass it, instead they are knowingly sending him bills that they know he will veto.|||no dems are reviving it because it is a good bill|||Another good question is why they keep reviving all the bills that have been voted down - like the Dream Act that shows up more often than Freddy Kruger.
I think they are pandering to a constituency who isn't supposed to be allowed to vote.|||I think you may have a point.
Look what went on with the wild fires this past week. ; )|||Yes. They have become "Stark," raving mad! Bush must hate children because, according to the Dems, he wants to see their heads blown off. And you liberals still want to vote for these Democrat nutcases?|||Perhaps they're just tired of seeing their constituent families sinking into a financial hole because of lack of health care?
And many, many Republicans support the S-CHIP, as well. It's just right-wing partisan goose-steppers that whine that it's "socialism" and regurgitate the lie that it covers "rich" families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)