Baby born from dead donor womb transplant in UK first

Jibes like this are exactly what I was talking about. Why the need to be personal?

What a load of rubbish. How could you possibly know the background of each person here?

Just trying to understand your argument - is your concern that the human race loses the ability to reproduce with out assistance?

Would you therefore oppose any infertility treatment?

What if your Mom had needed a kidney before she got pregnant with you, or if as a baby you needed an organ transplant?

That is why you have the opt out option. I'd sign up for that now if I were you.

Do you think they are asking people after they are dead?! Some would say this was a bit late.

I love the fact that the women on these threads waffling rubbish about buying children are always the ones with children and clearly never had an issue conceiving or being told their infertile. This transplant is bloody amazing and grace and her baby are doing so well. It also wasn’t a live donor or paid for on the nhs so people don’t need to worry unless they specially opt for this organ donation when they die. Can’t wait to see more and more done it’s about time things evolved.

Also, the uterus is just small organ - the size of a pear - which gradually expands as the foetus grows. At full term some of the discomfort a woman can feel is due to the baby in the uterus -squashing and restricting capacity and size of nearby organs - putting pressure on the bladder, for example, or on the stomach.

Where is the shame or coercion when you are dead?

We can expect the assisted dying Bill to have a similar level of assumed consent and assumptions about the 'majority view' being right and good and proper.

Many people with distressing genetic conditions decide to adopt or not have children because they understand they have a chance to stop the trauma being passed down. It feels very shortsighted as I said.

Majority of parliament.

Without making judgement either way, I would argue that a condition that literally renders the person unable to reproduce, is a little different to a condition that will kill a person at some point after reproducing.

It shouldnt be assumed everyone knows about the law, but more importantly, it shouldnt be assumed that people consent to organ and tissue donation.

The other very important point is that consent should be respected. There should be absolutrly no shaming or coercion in the choice of whether to donate body parts.

Its a personal choice which should be freely made based on informed consent.

Bit different if it literally causes the end of a genetic lineage though. As I say if she has a daughter and they can't have kids or her son has girls who have no womb, how can she know how it will affect them?

The majority disagreed.

It's wrong. The law should never have been changed.

You could say that about any genetic condition.

Should women who have a higher risk of developing breast cancer not have children?

Exactly - not hard to google either https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/uk-laws/organ-donation-law-in-england/timeline-for-max-and-keiras-law/

It’s okay that you don’t know the law, but this was well publicised.

Well it's a law, so was debated in parliament.

Reflecting on this point, I do think it is quite selfish. I can't imagine deciding to pass down a genetic fault that could render children and grandchildren infertile through my own choice.

Maybe they are imagining womb transplants will be commonplace in the future but imagine if the NHS isn't around and your grandkids can't afford the same treatments? It feels shortsighted.

"It was decided when it was changed'.

Evidently.

By who knows whom.

When the law changed from only being able to donate with a card to all being able to donate unless they have an opt out card.

Males can carry it, so although it won't affect this male baby he would potentially pass it on to his children and any female would also presumably have to have a womb transplant?