Baby born from dead donor womb transplant in UK first

No it wont and I seriously doubt that anyone would have honestly offered you a man their womb if it was a realistic possibility.
Oh and female can loan anyone their womb. Its not like borrowing a book or car you know

'My mother gives me whatever I demand, heck she would harvest her own organs if possible for me so other women should get on board and do the same.

For someone that bases their whole identity around the way they feel, you are very dismissive of the feelings of others, even the children you would like to parent.

No.
A man doesn't have the correct vascular system for a womb to be connected to, nor does he have an endocrine system that can sustain pregnancy nor can that be done with cross sex hormones. He doesn't have the space for a womb as his bladder, bowels and intestine are larger than women's, nor does he have the correct shape pelvis to allow room for a baby to grow.
Then theres the issue with toxicity to the man, men often have fatal reactions to blood from pregnant women if given in transfusion as such it must be assumed that being pregnant would most likely be fatal to a male.
So basically its never going to be possible for a man to have a successful womb transplant and pregnancy no matter what dodgy Dr's and delusional men claim

Describing a women's body part as 'housing' is precisely why so many feel uneasy about this. As others have said, this could lead to living women being pressured - by emotional blackmail or financial pressures - to 'donate' their wombs. It could lead to an industry like surrogacy where poor women are exploited by rich women. While I'm on the fence about this particular situation I don't think anyone should be on here calling other people ridiculous for being uneasy about this. There's an interesting philosophical and moral discussion to be had, for sure.

Whilst the law has changed, the practical elements haven't changed that much.

It is still a very difficult conversation to have with families and loved ones and many/most still react very emotionally to what is being asked/proposed.

There are still many people who refuse to have the conversation, give consent or for whom their religious or cultural beliefs mean that this is not possible.

We are a very long way from everyone being absolutely on board with organ donation. Blood donation even (very clearly demonstrated by supply issues).

The opt out law just enables conversations to start from that point of view, "your relative had not opted out, had they ever discussed their thoughts on donation?" It does not in anyway mean that organ donation is a given at all.

For those who feel all organs are equal, or that issues around genitalia are just because this is new, I would say read more about the complex psychological issues recipients have with other organs too. Also, would you always have zero concerns - face transplants? Hand transplants? Nothing makes you pause?

It does not actually help the organ donation cause to insist that there are no reasons to feel reticent or conflicted, or to make out that anyone who voices unease is just a stick in the mud.

Luckily, on the ground the hcps working in these scenarios have a greater understanding of the complexities and appreciate that for families to even discuss the possibility is a great act of generosity and bravery and not to be taken as a given at all.

Yes but the arguments against surrogacy make sense whether you agree with them or not - there is the birth mother’s feelings, rights and risk to her life to be taken into consideration. With this there is, sadly, no person anymore. There is no life to be affected. I do think there should be an option to consent to this in the event that you die but if this was made possible I literally do not see the issue other than, it’s creepy (of course it’s a little creepy- it’s someone else’s organ inside your body, there’s no getting away from that), and its very new. And people are terrified of anything new. I think this is where all the discomfort is coming from

Yes, ideas about bodies shift and have shifted and will continue to do so. But 'progess' is really just 'change', not automatically a Good Thing. Some see surrogacy as a positive for people who want a baby, others see it as baby trafficking.

When I signed up for my donor card, thirty odd years ago, the man was very clear on how personal a choice it was, and spelled out that nobody should donate unless they were wholly comfortable with it, and there should be no judgement if someone didnt want to donate, or donate only certain parts. For whatever reason. Consent over our bodies was respected.

Now of course it's assumed everyone is happy to donate everything. In only 30 years the whole assumption of what is permissible and even a tacit obligation has shifted.

I’m not pretending there are no psychological, emotional, cultural, social or MH considerations. It’s a huge thing, and very emotional I expect. But as I said in the post above, just because something’s difficult and emotional, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. It’s a little taboo (as is other organ donation) because it’s very new and it’s very intimate. Humans take time to get their heads round pioneering medical advancements like this, psychologically, emotionally, culturally and socially. Look at blood transfusions, which started in the 1700s - people were horrified at the idea of it. So horrified it went on to be banned all over the world. Now, it saves lives every day. Look at IVF, which I’m sure people were up in arms about at the beginning. I’m sure the thought of an embryo growing inside a Petri dish rather than a human body was horrifically mind-blowing for some people. Now it’s a commonly accepted way to help infertile people conceive. People are only shocked by this because it’s radical.

His mother is supposedly a biology professor 🙄

Its interesting how this post manages to appear dismissive and contemptuous of women's feelings, and yet jealously possessive of female body parts all in one go.

If it would be strange for a child to know their biological mother was dead, you don't think it'd be strange for them to know that they grew in a dead woman's uterus?

"If a young woman loses her life it can feel like her life was in vain, wasted because she lost it when she was young."

But it's okay if another woman can use her uterus to make a child? She's served her purpose after all, and so it's okay that she's dead? I'm sure that's not what you mean, but that's how it sounds.

And the issue is that some families might get peace of mind that their female relative didn't die in vain (although that's a rather silly sentiment). The family. Because as uterus donation is not something listed, and I imagine not something that people consider being incredibly rare, I very much doubt that women who die in rare enough circumstances that their organs can be donated, will have had a conversation with their female family member about whether she would want her uterus donated.

There is no explicit, clear consent from the pertinent party, only a family guessing what she wanted, with their own agendas at play. That's not good enough. It would be very easy for the NHS to add the uterus and every other specific organ to the list of possible donations. So why don't they?

The womb is an organ. Its not 'just a space' anymore than a heart s 'just a space for blood to flow through'.

.

I didn’t say I would have an issue with egg donation. I suggested that I could see why others may take issue with it if it was the woman’s eggs she was donating, rather than her womb. Of course there’s a difference with egg donation! I’m surprised I have to spell this out - but if she donated her eggs she would be the child’s biological mother and yes, that may well bring up some complicated feelings for the child, knowing that their biological mother was dead. This is obviously very different. It’s a body part that doesn’t contribute to the creation of the child, it just facilitates its growth. Of course, it’s still a vital part of the process and I’m sure there will be complicated feelings and emotions from all parties involved. But that doesn’t make it not worth doing. If a young woman loses her life it can feel like her life was in vain, wasted because she lost it when she was young. Doing something like this, I expect might give some families (and the person, before they died - when they opted in) peace of mind that their life wasn’t in vain. That they went on to help create a brand new life, and also saved 4 more people’s lives through other organ transplants. Just because something’s difficult and emotional, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.

Some people see body parts as 'housing'. Some don't.

She's been dismissive from the start. You don't need to rationalise her responses to that degree.

It is not ridiculous to have reticence over organ donation at all.

Read around many donor family and recipient experiences and the complex emotions that accompany these processes.

The Story of A Heart is excellent.

Being flippant and pretending there are no possible psychological emotional, cultural, social, mental health considerations to all this is frankly unimaginative and disingenuous.

Why would you have an issue with egg donation from a dead donor, if you don't have an issue with a uterus? That's just tissue and organs, right?

I don’t think she is. I think she’s just pointing out that, yes, while not being able to have children is truly horrendous for some people and may feel like a disability to them, it is not actually a disability. So we shouldn’t call it that.

Your argument is ridiculous. No baby gets to consent to being born. So many babies are born in horrendous circumstances that they did not get to consent to. It’s a body part. The dead woman is not donating her DNA/eggs/embryo. She is just providing housing for another woman’s baby to grow in.

Do you not understand how feelings work? You are being unecessarily dismissive of how much not being able to have children impacts upon some people.

It’s an organ that ONLY women and girls have.
It’s an organ that can be removed while the donor is alive.
For me, that raises far too many risks of young women/ girls being paid and coerced into donating their wombs to rich women and men who wish to “experience” pregnancy. Young girls might even have their wombs sold by their parents.
The rich can offer her life changing money and the promise that she will survive and not need it anyway, being so poor.

It’s a big no for me.

I know two people who died after transplants, one was the wife of my brother who needed a liver transplant after fertility treatment. She died ten days after the surgery. This was in the early 90s and I'm sure fertility treatment and transplant surgery/medication has moved on since then and got better but there are still risks involved in both. I just wish people wouldn't have this blind belief in medical advances being always good developments.
The other was a colleague of mine who needed a new heart after a heart attack. Both cases happened in countries with very good healthcare systems.

For me, everyone knew it was impossible, but the jokes and offers were appreciated. Thankfully there were no barriers preventing us from adopting.

I have hope for the future.

Oh yes, some women will bend over backwards to make a male happy. Very sad.

I suspect we'll be growing fetuses in labs before we manage to put a working uterus in a man, but it's nice that you have hope.