NHS told: give trans patients equal access to fertility service

women born without a womb

Which is pretty much how transwomen see themselves.

How is there any such thing as a ‘surrogacy community’ when commercial surrogacy is illegal?

Surely surrogacy in the UK is mostly about private agreements between loved ones and has nothing to do with any sort of ‘community.’

Commercial surrogacy is indeed illegal. Surrogacy in the UK is either via agencies like Surrogacy UK or via FB groups for independent altruistic matches - communities and meet ups. Commercial surrogacy is illegal so it's altruistic surrogacy with expenses only. They are private arrangements, but not necessarily between people who have been longstanding friends or family members.

Jamie - www.surrogacyuk.org/home

Though it's hard for a woman to be approved now I imagine a lot could change in the 40-odd years till I'm 60, like the donor mentioned above. I guess I'll have to keep and eye on the situation.

How is there any such thing as a ‘surrogacy community’ when commercial surrogacy is illegal?

Surely surrogacy in the UK is mostly about private agreements between loved ones and has nothing to do with any sort of ‘community.’

"The UK charity supporting research into womb transplantation is specifically founded to "enable women born without a womb , or who have lost their womb, to have a child"

I can imagine a possible future challenge to the charity!

The women who have been accepted into the UK womb transplant trial have had to pass strict criteria

"The women who will be selected for the trial must all meet criteria set out by Womb Transplant UK, which include being 38 or under, having a long-term partner and being a healthy weight.

More than 300 women have approached the team, of whom 104 meet the criteria."

I would doubt that transwomen would pass the established criteria

Out of interest the first womb transplant baby was born via a womb transplant from a living donor. The donor was a friend of the recipient, who was in her 60s and post menopausal.

www.bbc.com/news/health-29485996

The UK charity supporting research into womb transplantation is specifically founded to "enable women born without a womb, or who have lost their womb, to have a child"

It specifically refers to the 1 in 5000 women who are born without a womb - the majority of these will be due to syndromes like MRKH. That is certainly the case in the UK surrogacy community: there are women with uterine factor infertility, women who have uterine factor infertility due to not being born with a womb in the first place, and women who've lost their wombs to cancer. There are also an increasing amount of same sex male couples pursuing surrogacy.

I am not aware of whether the charity plans to change its mission statement to encompass those who underwent gender reassignment who were born male.

wombtransplantuk.org/about/why

42 women so far worldwide have undergone womb transplants. To my knowledge none of these women were transwomen.

www.bbc.com/news/health-44360786

Mine was in the forms when I changed GPs.

@OddBoots & @Jamieandwordswo do you know how to edit your registration for organ donation?

I'm happy to help people once I'm gone, no problem with an alcoholic getting me liver but someone with a fetish getting my uterus... not so much, though I wouldn't deny a woman with medical issues

Blue screen, yes, I had to fill in my donor info recently and excluded uterus and ovaries.

I was not rubbing anyones face in it. I just wanted to be honest.
I felt the same way when I had no children.

Congratulations on your 4 children

I'm delighted you were successful

Unfortunately not all of us can conceive naturally

I'm glad that you have your family

Not all of us are so lucky

We had IVF as an option. I said no. It caused a few issues in our relationship.

I now have 4 children twins were our last addition. Delivered by csec.
I never saw having children as a right. I decided trying and possibly failing was what we had to do. So thats what we did.

I cant describe my mindset properly without sounding like a complete cow. I just have a different opinion.

If nature says no for whatever reason then is it ok to just go ahead anway?

Where does that stop though? If I hadn’t had a c section me and the boy would be dead. I’d imagine about 20% of us have had antibiotics for something that stood a chance of killing them if we hadn’t.

I think what’s unfair is the postcode lottery aspect of it. Would it be fairer to fund say three cycles nationwide on a sliding fee scale maybe? So people are contributing according to ability to pay and everyone has the same access?

Postcode lotteries for any health care seem wrong to me. It’s a national health service and peiole shpuld revieve on the basis of clinical need, not postcode.

Then for one group who are voluntarily Giving up fertility to be prioritised over cancer patients who have no choice? If that happened it’d be very wrong indeed.

There are enough humans on the planet to keep the human race alive. If nature says no for whatever reason then is it ok to just go ahead anway?

I am aware my stance will cause a huge backlash. To be clear my fist born child was 6 lost babies and 1 still birth later. I am not insensative. Just pragmatic.

I'm sorry for your losses

Maybe it is against nature that we had IVF but if we'd have been able to have a child then he or she would have been so deeply loved and wanted

We took no public funds for our IVF

I took no public funds for the antenatal care and births I never had

8 million IVF babies have been born worldwide in the last 40 years since Louise Brown's birth just over 40 years ago. Maybe they were also all against nature but I have no doubt many very very happy families are so very glad that they were

We may be at crossed purposes Betty, I disn't express mine very well!

My belief is that if there are newly drawn up fertility saving protocols, I think they would be less likely to have a 'postcode lottery effect' than for example the fertility saving treatments for people diagnosed with cancer.
This would be in part that as they are new, they would be adopted across all trusts. Additionally, the awareness and advocacy enjoyed by the transgender community simply does not exist for people newly diagnosed with cancer.
As I described and was echoed by the studies and campaign I linked previously, the situation for females diagnosed with cancer is very, very different to those who are embarking on medical treatments associated with gender transition.

Is it a human right to have children?

There are enough humans on the planet to keep the human race alive. If nature says no for whatever reason then is it ok to just go ahead anway?

I am aware my stance will cause a huge backlash. To be clear my fist born child was 6 lost babies and 1 still birth later. I am not insensative. Just pragmatic.

Oops - www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/free-ivf-nhs-scrapped-trafford-14428791

R0 - do you think that being legally obliged to offer a more consistent standard of care countrywide would end up helping less people in the long term?

(Recent Manchester story for context - not trans related: www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/free-ivf-nhs-scrapped-trafford-14428791)

As mentioned before, this stuff is all subject to postcode lotteries anyway, regardless of cause, so I’m not sure how much difference this will make in the real world.

Im less sure that the postcode lottery effect would exist.

Thanks bowl apologies for my misunderstanding. Think we are in violent agreement!

I highly doubted that any IVF funding will be available on the NHS in 5 years time anyway, but I suspect this will be the death knell and accelerate it faster

(Our - unsuccessful - IVF was privately funded, we didn't get anything on the NHS)

R0wan

If we agree that being trans is an illness, then yes, it makes sense to offer gamete preservation in line with other illnesses that cause fertility loss (either due to the illness itself or the treatment of the ilness).

However, if being trans is not an illness (as stated by Theresa May recently) there is no reason to offer parity of treatment.

Unless of course, two trans people in a couple are of the same birth sex, in which case they should be entitled to the same sort of fertility help as other same sex couples.

As mentioned before, this stuff is all subject to postcode lotteries anyway, regardless of cause, so I’m not sure how much difference this will make in the real world.

Pressures on the NHS mean less and less assistance is available for those struggling to conceive, so it’s more likely that help will fall for everyone, rather than significantly rise for trans people.