Abstract
There is a growing trend in European countries for childbearing to occur later in women’s lives. The recent increase in the use of ART, together with the long-term trend towards later childbearing, raises questions as to the acceptable age of childbearing in contemporary society. ART legislation varies considerably across Europe and age limits for access to fertility treatment are rarely defined. The legislation takes into account the preferences of potential parents; children’s preferences, however, are not ascertained. The article discusses a research method used in a survey of older children and young adults. The objective of the survey was to answer the following questions: What age would children prefer their parents to be if they could choose? What are their reasons? Respondents were asked the following question: “How old would you like your mother and father to be when you are 20 (version for respondents younger than 16) or 25 (version for those older than 16) if you could wave a magic wand?” Furthermore, their reasons for wishing a change were identified through an open question, “Why would you like to change the age of your parents?”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Acton, Q. A. (2012). Infertility: new insights for the healthcare professional. Atlanta: Scholarly Editions.
Allen, B., & Tussey, C. (2012). Can projective drawings detect if a child experienced sexual or physical abuse? A systematic review of the controlled research. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 16(2), 137–145.
Annunziata, M. A., Giovannini, L., & Muzzatti, B. (2012). Assessing the body image: Relevance, application and instruments for oncological settings. Supportive Care in Cancer, 20(5), 901–907.
Baxter, A. L., Mehernoor, F. W., Baxter, W. V., Leong, T., & Wyatt, M. M. (2011). Development and validation of a pictorial nausea rating scale for children. Pediatrics, 127, e1542–e1549.
Becker, A., Rubly, M., El Kahtib, D., Becker, N., & von Gontard, A. (2011). Central nervous system processing of emotions in children with faecal incontinence. Acta Paeadiatrica, 100(12), e267–e274.
Beets, G., Schippers, J., & te Velde, E. R. (Eds.) (2011). The future of motherhood in Western Societies. Heidelberg: Springer.
Donoghue, S. (2000). Projective techniques in consumer research. Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 28, 47–53.
Dunson, D. B., Colombo, B., & Baird, D. D. (2002). Changes with age in the level and duration of fertility in the menstrual cycle. Human Reproduction, 17, 1399–1403.
ESHRE (2013). Task force on ethics and law 13. The welfare of the child in medically assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction, 22, 2585–2588. http://www.eshre.eu/~/media/emagic%20files/SIGs/Ethics%20and%20Law/Task%20Forces/Task%20Force%2013.pdf (date last accessed: October 6, 2013).
Eurostat (2013). Populations and social conditions — online database. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu (date last accessed: August 21, 2013).
Garb, H. N., Lilienfeld, S. O., Nezworski, J. M., & Wood, J. M. (2002). Effective use of projective techniques in clinical practice: Let the data help with selection and interpretation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(5), 454–463.
Garb, H. N., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Wood, J. M. (2004). Projective techniques and behavioral assessment. In M. J. Hilsenroth & D.J. Segal (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, personality assessment. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological assessment. (5th edition). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
HEFA (2010). Facts and figures 2006: fertility problems and treatment. London: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
Ivey, J. (2012). Demystifying research: Projective research techniques. Pediatric Nursing, 38(3), 181–182.
Jungwirth, A., Diemer, T., Dohle, D., Giwercman, A., Kopa, Z., Krausz, C., & Tournaye, H. (2012). Textbook of assisted reproductive technologies. Arnhem: European Association of Urology.
Kohler, H. P., Billari, F. C., & Ortega, J. A. (2006). Low fertility in Europe: Causes, implications and policy options. In F. R. Harris (Ed.), The baby bust: Who will do the work? Who will pay the taxes? Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Konečná, J., Burcin, B., Kučera, T. (submitted). How old is too old? A contribution to the discussion on age limits for access to ART. Submitted to Human Reproduction.
Leader, A. (2006). Pregnancy and motherhood: the biological clock. Sex Reproduction & Menopause, 4(1), 3–6.
Leridon, H. (2004). Can assisted reproduction technology compensate for the natural decline in fertility with age? A model assessment. Human Reproduction, 19, 1548–1553.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. American Psychological Society, 1(2), 27–66.
Müller-Götzmann, C. (2009). Reproduktionsmedizinische Grundlagen. In Artifizielle Reproduktion und gleichgeschlechtliche Elternschaft. Heidelberg: Springer.
Nybo Andersen, A., Wohlfahrt, J., Christens, P., Olsen, J., Melbye, M. (2000). Maternal age and fetal loss: population based register linkage study. BMJ, 320(7251), 1708–12.
Parliament of the Czech Republic (2011). Act No. 373/2011 Coll. on Specific Health Services.
Plante, T. G. (2005). Contemporary Psychological Assessment: Cognitive and Personality Assessment. In T. G. Plante (Ed.), Contemporary clinical psychology (2nd ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Rizk, B., Garcia-Velasco, J., Sallam, H., & Makrigiannakis, A. (2008). Infertility and assisted reproduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roller, R. M. (2010). Qualitative research: Use of projective techniques depends on objectives. Research design review. http://researchdesignreview.com/2010/06/30/qualitative-research-use-ofprojective-techniques-depends-on-objectives/ (date last accessed: March 22, 2014).
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2011). RCOG statement on later maternal age. http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/ (date last accessed: March 19, 2014).
Schmidt, L., Sobotka, T., Bentzen, J. G., & Nyboe Andersen, A.; on behalf of the ESHRE (2012). Reproduction society task force. Demographic and medical consequences of the postponement of parenthood. Human Reproduction Update, 18(1), 29–43.
Seli, E. (2011). Infertility. Chichester: Wiley Publishing.
Stronach, E., Toth, S., Rogosch, F., Oshri, A., Manly, J., & Cicchetti, D. (2011). Child maltreatment, attachment security, and internal representations of mother and mother-child relationships. Child Maltreatment, 16, 137–145.
te Velde, E., Habbema, D., Leridon, H., & Eijkemans, M. (2012). The effect of postponement of first motherhood on permanent involuntary childlessness and total fertility rate in six European countries since the 1970s. Human Reproduction, 27, 1179–1183.
Thorpe, R., Croy, S., Petersen, K., & Pitts, M. (2012). In the best interests of the child? Regulating assisted reproductive technologies and the well-being of offspring in the three Australian states. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 26, 259–277.
United Nations (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (date last accessed: March 17, 2014).
United Nations (1966). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx (date last accessed: March 17, 2014).
United Nations (1989). The Convention on the Rights of the Child. http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx (date last accessed: March 17, 2014).
Viglione, D. J., & Rivera, B. (2003). Assessing personality and psychopathology with projective methods. In B. I. Wiener, J. R. Graham, & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of psychology. (Vol.10 — Assessment Psychology). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Will, V., Eadie, D., & MacAskill, S. (1996). Projective and enabling techniques explored. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 14(6), 38–43.
Zweifel, J. E., Covington, S. N., & Applegarth, L.D. (2012). “Last-chance kids”: A good deal for older parents—but what about the children? Sexuality, Reproduction and Menopause, 4, 4–12.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Funding: Supported by GACR P407/10/0822.
About this article
Cite this article
Konečná, H., Kocourková, J., Burcin, B. et al. Can a magic wand plausibly be used in serious psychological research? The complications of researching the ideal age at which to be a parent through the eyes of the child. Humaff 24, 354–362 (2014). https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-014-0233-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-014-0233-x