In July 2026, PET and ESHRE published a joint report containing the results of an international survey assessing public attitudes towards the use of embryos in the context of fertility treatment and research. Societal views on these matters are considered important, as embryos remain a sensitive ethical issue, given their status relating to the origin of human life.
One part of the survey addressed societal views on age limits for patients accessing fertility treatment. The (relative) majority of all respondents across the four surveyed countries (United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Spain and Italy) supported the idea that there should be upper age limits for patients, even when treatment is self-funded. Opinions on the exact age that should be selected as a limit were divided, with 40, 45 and 50 years of age being the most frequently selected thresholds.
These results tell us something beyond the issue of public funding and use of (limited) healthcare resources for fertility treatment: they signal that many people want general age limits, regardless of how patients pay for fertility treatment. But is age actually a contested criterion with regard to access to fertility treatment? And why are societal views on this matter important?
Age limits in law
For a start, it is undeniable that parental age is a disputed issue with respect to fertility treatment. This is shown – amongst other things – by the remarkable diversity across Europe alone in the rules on this matter. In Denmark, for example, medical staff are forbidden to treat women older than the age of 45. In Greece, on the contrary, women until the age of 54 can potentially get access to fertility care. Other countries – such as the United Kingdom – do not have explicit age prohibition in the law, but access to publicly funded fertility care is often restricted based on the age of the intended mother.
When it comes to legal age limits for the other member of the couple (eg husband or partner, if present), age cutoffs also vary between countries. In France, for example, the member of the couple not intending to bear the child should be under 60 years old; in Albania the limit is 50 years of age; and in many other countries there is no specific limit.
This situation of substantial legal diversity – with around 10 years of differences for intended parents across countries in the same continent – is a clear sign of how age limits for fertility treatment remain a disputed issue.
Why age limits?
There are many reasons why age is used to restrict access to fertility treatment.
First, there are medical reasons. Fertility treatment enables patients to try to conceive at older ages (eg postmenopausal women through oocyte donation), but this entails increased risks for the health of the child and the birthing person. Indeed, advanced maternal age is associated with comparatively poorer perinatal outcomes and advanced paternal age is also associated with higher risks for the child.
Second, there are socio-cultural reasons. Having children is often considered a life stage, and empirical research has shown that different societies have specific expectations of what they consider 'normal' reproductive age, and 'responsible' reproductive timing.
This is why surveys have been conducted to investigate whether people think that access to fertility treatment should be allowed also for patients who do not fit the 'standard' age bracket within which people usually have children.
How to pick a number?
Nevertheless, many problems remain with deciding if age limits for access to fertility services should be set, and at which exact age.
On the one hand, medical evidence signals increased risks with age, but it does not give us a specific number beyond which these risks are so high as to be worthy of a blanket age ban. Indeed, research has shown that – if careful health screening is performed – it is both possible and relatively safe to have children well into the sixth decade of life of the birthing person.
On the other hand, socio-cultural views about the 'right' age to have children are not necessarily the product of evidence-based societal concerns (eg. about the benefits of having not-too-old parents), but can also be the result of preconceptions about what is a 'good' parent based merely on a specific idea of 'normality'.
In this respect, it is worth noting that the phenomenon of motherhood beyond 45 – which is often framed as worrisome and somehow unprecedented in the ethical literature – was actually much more common (in certain societies) in the last century. Naturally, conditions have changed: in the past, people may have had their fourth or fifth child at 45, rather than their first or second. Still, it is a reminder that societal conceptions of what is 'normal' or 'morally desirable' may be influenced by what is statistically common.
Navigating public policy
The quest for the 'right' age limits for fertility treatment is not only a philosophical and theoretical dispute, but also a current political issue in many countries. Armenia, for example, removed age limits for fertility treatment in late 2025, after a ruling of the Constitutional Court that deemed such limits to be in contrast with the country's Basic Law.
Switzerland, on the contrary, is now considering adding age limits for parents as part of a comprehensive legal reform in the field of fertility treatment (see BioNews 1276).
Swiss legislators decided to legalise oocyte donation, opening up the possibility that postmenopausal women may decide to undergo fertility treatment using eggs from younger donors. This has prompted a debate on whether chronological age limits should be added, given that the current law only says that access can be granted as long as intended parents 'on the basis of their age and personal circumstances, are likely to be able to care for and bring up the child until it reaches the age of majority'.
The Swiss population remains sceptical about granting access to patients beyond the age of 50, but the outcome of this legal reform is still uncertain. The final decision on whether to complement the current rule by also adding chronological age limits is difficult, since – as explained above – age is a multifaceted concept, where purely chronological, biomedical and sociocultural factors are commingled.
In this respect, surveys like the one published by PET and ESHRE are important evidence to consider, but they need to be complemented by an open societal debate on the role and limits of fertility medicine in our time.