Uterine transplant. Just because something CAN be done, SHOULD it?

[uppityperson]

Here are 2 articles, one by a medical news place, second MSNBC. My understanding is 1 woman (cadavar) donates her uterus, another woman (living) receives it. The recipient must use all the usual anti-rejection drugs as this is an organ transplant. An IVF egg is placed in the uterus, woman gives birth, then uterus removed (letting her not have to continue anti-rejection medicine). Problems: Medicine needed to not reject uterus may harm woman, what about developing fetus? What about surgical risks, 2 surgeries as well as anti-rejection drugs? What if uterus fails and must be removed? I sure as hell don't mind my heart or lungs being used after I'd dead, to give someone the ability to continue to live but don't see using my uterus in the same light.

I feel for people who cannot get pregnant or stay pregnant and wish to. I feel very sorry for people who want so much to bear a child, but I am having problems with this one. Too many risks.


http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=60904 (aside from the "hoping...successful" as most places don't hope for unsuccessful surgeries, here is a short article)

The New York Downtown Hospital is planning to carry out the first ever successful uterus transplant. The procedure had been attempted six years ago in Saudi Arabia, but failed. Women who do not have a uterus, such as those who underwent a hysterectomy, would possibly have the chance to conceive. The transplant might also help women who have a damaged or defective uterus.

The medical team is currently screening women who want to have children but are unable to.

Team leader, Giuseppe Del Priore M.D., M.P.H., said that the desire to have a child is a tremendous driving force for many women. He believes he and his team may be able to help many women fulfill "this very basic desire".

Even though such a transplant is not planned for the very near future, Del Priore told The Washington Post that a transplant may be attempted towards the end of this year.

Several experts have voiced concern about carrying out such a procedure before further animal tests are done. Others wonder whether the risks may be greater than the benefits for both the woman and the fetus.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16654912/

A team of physicians in New York City has announced that they intend to conduct the first uterus transplant in the United States. For women born without a uterus, or who have had their uterus removed due to illness, this procedure offers the hope that they will be able to bear children.

(clip) There are three major issues.

First, little research has been done on animals. No animal has given birth to a healthy offspring or even given birth at all post a uterus transplant. If, instead of a surgical innovation, the doctors involved were talking about a new drug treatment to give to infertile women, no one would let them try without showing that it was safe and had some efficacy in animals.

Second, the uterus to be transplanted will have to come from a deceased woman. The New York doctors say they will use someone who has signed a donor card and whose family is OK with the donation. But is this really enough? Few American women ever thought that their uterus might be donated if they signed a donor card. The uterus is not seen by many women in the same light as a kidney or a liver. The transplant team would be on firmer moral ground if they used a donated uterus from a woman who explicitly consented to donate that organ prior to her death and who made it very clear that she and her family renounced any and all claims to a relationship with any child that might result.

Lastly, it is very likely the first uterus transplant will fail. The surgical team says that this is not a problem since they can take the uterus out if things go wrong. But what if that uterus contains a fetus? What if the mother says she is willing to die to give birth to that fetus? What if the father or the mother say they want the uterus removed even if there is a fetus present if things are not going as planned? The doctors have not said as much as they need to about what their "exit" strategy will be if, sadly, the surgery does not go as planned...(more@ link)

[sui generis]

1. Well, medicine doesn't advance without pushing the boundaries

Is the chance that a child might be born not worth the chance that the mother would reject uterus? Or do we think the other way around, that if there is a risk to the fetus we shouldn't get pregnant?

It's all point of view. I personally think if someone wants a baby that badly, it's much cheaper and safer to go the surrogate mother route, both in the short term and the long term to both mother and child, but either way I wouldn't stand in the way of someone else's very personal choice in the matter.

I don't know where "morality" comes into the discussion at any place though.

[uppityperson]

5. I am used to organ transplants being last gasp before you die.

An organ transplant (beyond corneas) is nothing to go into lightly, hence people have to be really bad off before they are done. Seems like this is more of an optional thing, which is my main problem with it. Yes, every time a woman gets pg there is a risk to both woman and embryo/fetus/baby. But taking anti-rejection drugs while pregnant so you can be pregnant? I think there is a better way to allocate resources, to provide health care for those already born. The issue gets complicated and I am sure will be good for many strong conversations. Am going to be watching this and trying to maintain an open mind, willing to think about it past my initial reluctance.

[Gormy Cuss]

14. The idea of rejection while the fetus is too young to live outside the womb

as well as whether the fetus is at added risk because of the anti-rejection drugs seem to be the chief medical ethics considerations. With low risk of side effects or rejection it would be a non issue to me.

MSNBC has an article about fertility clinics using embryo selection to choose those with the same genetic anomaly or disability as the parents --- dwarfism and deafness are two examples used. Now that strikes me as a major ethical issue worthy of long conversations too.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16299656/wid/11915773/

[Kelly Rupert]

2. It doesn't seem any more risky than any other surgery.

The problem is simple moral squeamishness. There were similar reactions to organ transplantation in general when it was first proposed and enacted. For every medical advancement, there will always be those who are uncomfortable with the idea proposed.

[uppityperson]

6. what are effects of anti-rejection drugs on embryo/fetus?

[MadHound]

3. This is insane. After all, there are literally millions of children that need good homes

Is it all that important that the child come out of your womb?

[uppityperson]

7. For some it seems that important that the child come out of her vagina

since it isn't her womb. It is that important to have the fetus develop inside her body, being grown with her blood. This is why I ask just because it can be done, should it?

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Well, not *your* womb but a womb for rent

(Sorry, bad and probably inappropriate pun.)

Sad as it is, the answer is yes. There seem to be an awful lot of people who feel that if a baby is not carried to term within her own body or within the body of his wife/girlfriend, it isn't really theirs.

[Mandate My Ass]

10. womb for rent

:rofl:

Hey, they don't have to wait until I die to take mine out. I should see about donating it today. I don't even care what they do with it.

[htuttle]

11. Well, don't we all want a womb of one's own?

:spank:

:spank:

:spank:

[sui generis]

18. I'm going to have to keep my eye on you

after all, you probably want a womb with a view.

ba dum tish!

[Kerrytravelers]

13. I've often wondered this, as well.

As a woman, I understand the need to bare children. I have that desire, as well. However, my mother is adopted. She never once felt less of a daughter because her birth mother gave her up. She felt special in that she was chosen by my grandparents. A child is a child.

We have a couple who we are extremely close with. The wife had leukemia as a child, then, at nineteen, began developing a series of brain tumors that she still deals with today, at age 31. She has had seven major brain operations and a few minor ones to refit the plastic in her head where her skull once was.

This couple had a child naturally. The growth of the baby played a role in the worst round of tumors she had, which, four and a half years later the doctors are still working on. This child has literally almost killed her and has definitely shortened her life expectancy.

And now, she wants another child. She has a son. Now she wants a daughter. And she isn't interested in adopting.

Is dying worth having a child?

There are so many children who need a good home. As cliche as that sounds, it's true. We're certainly going to adopt, even if we do end up have one or two naturally. My mother was adopted and I want to give someone else as good a home as my mother had. I've begun the research into adoption. Just looking at the faces of these beautiful children just wanting someone to care for them breaks my heart.

In the end, it is such a personal decision. It's what makes me pro-choice. But I think that it is also easy to get wrapped up in all the excitement given to being pregnant that it sweeps us off our feet and makes it easy to forget about adoption as a very wonderful option.

[Mandate My Ass]

4. Then don't donate your uterus

It seems that simple to me. :shrug:

[SmokingJacket]

9. How many women would be willing to use a dead woman's uterus?

Hey, I'd take a dead person's organ to save my life or something as vital as my vision, no doubt about it.

But it's too freaky to do something as optional as giving birth. I'd rather adopt.

I sure wish we'd take better care of the kids who are already here before we resort to extreme measures such as this.

[Skidmore]

12. Man, it's bad enough having your period with

your own uterus. I'd be damned if I'd have someone else's periods too.

No, seriously. This creeps me out a little. I can see it being an option for a woman though.

[uppityperson]

15. Best reason to not do this.

:rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Withywindle]

16. Why does it have to come from a deceased woman?

Anyone who wants mine can have it. I'm not using it! :D

[uppityperson]

17. eBay it!

[xultar]

19. A uterus is different from a liver how?

[uppityperson]

20. A liver is needed to maintain my life.

I could adopt a child and survive, hard to do this with a liver. I can survive without a uterus. Not without a liver.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. They do hand transplants, don't they?

I mean, how many people *need* a hand transplant to survive?

I think, like many things, this should be between the patient and the doctor. I don't see why it's other folks' business.