Baby born from dead donor womb transplant in UK first

I don’t think anyone has ever said that the supply out strips demand. I think the reason to highlight that number is that this has the potential for so many people to be helped.

How many young healthy women die in the uk a year? I doubt there’ll be 5000-15000 wombs available for transplant. Like surrogacy demand will outstrip supply and people will be falling over themselves to justify why you can take a poor woman’s womb away from her so a rich woman can have a baby. I also doubt that at 30k a go this charity will be funding all this for the foreseeable future for everyone that wants a womb. No doubt people will expect the tax payer to fund it.

I think it’s absolutely wonderful. I’ve seen people’s lives be absolutely destroyed by infertility - an aunt of mine took her own life. Huge Catholic family and everyone around her had several kids. She had had a failed adoption after the child became violent due to trauma and left her hospitalised. Infertility and the rate of children in the care system should not be equated into being the same issue. Children in care is a socioeconomic issue and should be addressed as such through more support in deprived communities, outreach programmes, SureStart centres etc. It is nothing to do with infertility.

It will also reduce the demand for surrogacy which is a huge bonus - far less traumatic for the baby.

And infertility isn’t always by unfortunate chance - infertility can also be caused by sexual abuse as a child or as a result of a violent attack. Would you really tell a women who’s womb had irreparable damage due to childhood abuse that you don’t think she should be eligible for a womb transplant because “tough” and “life isn’t fair”?

People get reconstructive surgeries on the NHS all of the time that may not be life-saving - but will improve their quality of life after their face has been disfigured as a result of a dog attack, car accident, burns etc. This is done because the alternative is for the person to suffer a needlessly miserable existence. So the argument that a transplant needs to be “life-saving” doesn’t wash either.

They should have womb transplants be an “opt-in” thing, separate from the normal organ transplant service where it’s an “opt-out”. I would opt-in with no question. My pregnancy is the best thing to have ever happened to me, I’d love to help give that to another woman.

But the point being, your views on it don’t prevail? If the donor consented to donate, and the recipient consented to the operation, that’s it.

Of course it is! If you are dying from kidney/heart/whatever failure it will save your life. If you get corneas it means you can see again. You get a womb, so you can have a baby. Which is not (despite some people’s thinking) an inalienable right.

Well, you don't get to decide that because it's not yours to spend!

Just because there are other deserving causes it doesn't mean this cause isn't deserving.

If people raise money for cancer you can't then complain it should be spent on heart research because it's more important. The people who think heart research is more important raise their own money for hearts.

This charity is literally set up with the purpose of funding this research. This money has been donated and funded for this purpose.

so given the consultants etc., all worked extra hours, and were paid by the charity, what resources have been used?

I didn’t say where the money was from.
But I’m sure there’re plenty more deserving places

All being paid for by the charity, and not the taxpayer.

Yes males do have a longer larger colon & rectum than females. Males also have a prostate gland which isn’t in females.

Precious !
The work of Surgeons & surgical ward staff. etc. etc.
Huge amount of £££££

The personal choices of individuals about their own care is not for you to know or judge to decide whether a womb transplant being possible is awful for children or not.

There are many conditions that aren't inheritable that would also make this transplant useful. Gynae cancer survivors for one.

I noticed you've stopped replying to facts about we know a womb transplant doesn't enable genetically defective children to be born and suffer and why we know this. It's very clear you just want to make personal judgements on the women who need fertility treatment because you think they should be adopting instead.

Happy to donate my organs to save a life, or someone's sight. I would never consent to donating my womb. I think that kind of experiment is an unjustifiable risk.

As for growing children in a lab, completely dystopian. We may never understand everything about the complexities of the mother-baby bond, it's hubris to think we can just replace a mother's body without unforeseen consequences.

I'm not saying organs aren't taken from trafficked men and women abroad. This doesn't apply if you're on an NHS waiting list for one as all donated organs are centrally managed and given to the most at risk.

I am uneasy about all of it.

I think it is being slightly glossed over that the recipient of the donor uterus underwent a TEN HOUR operation to receive this organ. She then went through IVF cycles to become pregnant. She is now on anti rejection drugs and there is both further ivf, another pregnancy and CS and then a hysterectomy planned.

The number of people for whom this course of action is even remotely possible let alone advisable must be pretty small?

What are the long term health impacts of all of this?

That's terrifying - I would never have guessed it's that high.

Estimates suggest that about 10% of transplant organs come from illegal sources

https://www.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/sep/10/for-me-there-was-no-other-choice-inside-the-global-organ-trade

You don't need to question the ethics of organ donations to acknowledge that there is a trade in organs, that a womb is an organ that only a woman has and that there are sex specific reasons that women are at risk of exploitation.

Depends where you stand and what your experience teaches you.

I did nurse training sometime in the 80s. I had a heated discussion with an entitled, arrogant male nurse tutor, about how much "use" a uterus is. He maintained that a uterus is pretty valueless and women should be pleased to have it removed after they've finished having children.

https://wombtransplantuk.org/fact-sheet/the-potential-for-operations-for-transgender-women

Actually they seem pretty clear. It also aounds like theyve had enough enquiries to have to male a statement.

No, it's actually a reasonable argument. Women are the only humans with wombs. If a womb comes to be seen as a commodity with a market value, which it could, given that surrogacy has gone down that path, then women who need money are likely to be exploited and coerced by amoral middle-men into selling their wombs. The risk of death and disfigurement is present with any kind of major surgery. Unscrupulous people would develop a trade in wombs for sale. Women would suffer.

Okay so you don’t agree with kidney transplants? It’s technically possible to survive with dialysis only.

Or a heart transplant, if the person is surviving with ECMO or LVAD, it’s not life saving. Same with lung transplants, or cornea transplants.

Oh FFS

They said it would be discrimination not to Ergo they will so no i won't retract anything