Baby born from dead donor womb transplant in UK first

I’m happy for the couple.

I’m marginally concerned that genetically, we may be creating more infertility and thus more need for such interventions.

I don’t believe this offers any significant change to the potential for womb transplants into men.

Living donor not great as probably open to exploitation.

certainly better than surrogacy

But I do feel a little unease as many of these scientific breakthroughs always seem centred on the science and not the resulting child. I wonder how far it will go?

What’s that got to do with the price of fish?

what about the poster who needed a kidney before pregnancy? Do you have opposition to that?

I need surgery on my knee. Do I just accept that I need to live in pain, as opposed to getting it healed?

No it’s not.

someone dies and agrees to donate their organs. Their womb is harvested as are there other organs. It is then implanted into a woman who desperately wants a child. How is that surrogacy?

No. However, lots of women have medical intervention to allow them to have children, whether that's drugs that manage pre-exisiting conditions to make a pregnancy lower risk, or indeed IVF. You seem to be saying some people can use modern medicine to 'have what they want' but not women who need a womb transplant; that seems totally inconsistent with the basis upon which most modern medicine is administered. Like, my mum's hip replacement.

Hmmm... but long term?

Just had a quick google - it says risk low... I forgot to consider the fact that children have been born to mothers taking immunosuppressants for other medical conditions.

Exactly
Women will become commodities, even more than they are today.
Its like surrogacy on speed

Will she use the hip to create a completely new person?

Not for thousands of kids in care in the UK. I'm sure they'd jump at the chance of a loving home.

Well obviously they're aren't any, that's why it's a viable option.

You can't take hips from live donors.

The main ethical issue here imo is that, as recent history shows, women are often trafficked, coerced, or pressured to donate their reproductive capacity to people who wish to have babies, whether that be eggs, surrogacy - or potentially in future with more live donation, a uterus.

On the one hand, a womb is an organ, just like the heart or lungs. If there was consent, then it's ethical.

On the other hand, given the abuse we see in the surrogacy world, I can see this being the start of something much worse. We already know about the imbalance of power, sexism, class and money and what it does to poor women. We've already seen doners die from carrying surrogates. What's to stop the Iranian regime from selling the wombs of executed political prisoners? Or girls in Afghanistan being handed over for donor surgery because their families are desperate and they have no other choice?

Whilst I find the framing here a bit offensive - it is not a disability - I understand the strong feelings of loss at not being fertile but if that is hampering your day to day functioning (like an actual disability), you may need some IRL support. Not meant snarkily BTW.

I don't know how I feel about time and resources spent on this. I know I don't really agree that a womb transplant is just like any other transplant for the simple reason that it involves creating another life via a risky procedure for nothing more than want. I may change my mind about that - anything to stop the awfulness of surrogacy would be a good thing.

What is morally and ethically wrong with adoption? Would you rather vulnerable children with, drug addicted parents should remain in their care? Would you rather a child who's parents were killed and no other family, remained in care homes?

While I have no objection to the idea, I am wondering what effect the drugs that the mother would take to stop rejection of the organ would have on a growing baby.

My mum needs a hip replacement. Should she get one or should she just accept that not everyone gets to go for a walk? She can probably still shuffle around and undoubtedly it won't kill her so maybe she should just accept her lot? What do you think?

I think it's wonderful. There isn't a part of my body I need upon death and should any of if be used to help another human, then fantastic.

Ah yes the it's infertiles that are responsible for over population argument 🙄. One or two wanted children are not the problem.

and all of a sudden it’ll be very apparent that sex does actually matter!

What are they? A child is looked after by another person because the birth mother and /or their wider family can't. Not morally ambiguous surely.

Just to say that the reason I do not want children is due to not wanting to be pregnant. Clearly I also wouldn’t do this process, but lots of women do not want to put their bodies through the process. Whilst the body is technically equipped for it, many women die due to issues from pregnancy (though yes, less so now modern medicine is a thing). Even less severe things like the changes to your hair, the potential damage to your teeth etc etc are incredibly off putting and arguably a reason why the body doesn’t want to be pregnant.

Im not saying I would also like to simply go and collect a child from the shop (I wouldn’t) but to imply that pregnancy is this easy breazy thing that women love isn’t right either. Most women I know who had babies viewed pregnancy as an uncomfortable and painful event.

I am not sure what "Fucking ridiculous" means in this context? What do you actually mean? You think it's immoral? Or dangerous? Or you personally wouldn't have one?

Lots of transplants are done when the recipients life is not in danger. Face transplants for example but there are many.

The UK has a birth rate crisis, actually.

What “previous resources” are being used?

Well, perhaps limit the amount of children some women have? Shall we forcefully sterilise them after one? Two? Who decides?

We aren’t short of humans, I feel this is a hugely wasteful way of using precious resources.