Boy born to mothers who carried egg in both wombs

[Doyoumind]

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-50659382

What are your thoughts on this? To me it seems like a procedure entirely in the interests of the parents and not the child. Perhaps IABU.

Without any specialist knowledge, it doesn't seem riskier than standard IVF.

And what she means by ‘we are a true family’ is that we shared this experience.

This doesn’t mean that any other family is ‘fake’. It simply means that out of the different options for them for parenthood, this is the one she and her wife felt suited them.

Ludicrous headline. One woman donated eggs (egg retrieval being carried out via removal from the ovary), it was fertilised in vitro then implanted in the other woman's uterus. Only one womb involved.

No, Daily Telegraph and other news outlets, it did not hesitate in two separate wombs.

Seems like a daft way of doing it. And I say that as someone who had IVF.

Gestate dammit.
Damn you, autocucumber.

A lot of effort!

Looking at the website it doesn't seem that this is riskier than normal IVF and they claim some benefits. However a significant benefit claimed is that it makes the mother's uterus more receptive to implantation and of course this wouldn't apply if the embryo is put back into a different uterus.

You've missed the 18 hours the embryo spent in the bio mum's uterus after fertilization before being transplanted to her partner's uterus BarbaraStrozzi

The phrase "just because you can, it doesn't mean you should" springs to mind.

They discussed this on the radio, one lady has egg removed and fertilised then instead of waiting in lab dish till there are ten cells in a week. It’s put in some sort capsule and put back in First Lady for a week so she can feel like she’s involved. Then put in lady B.

The medical person said no or less safer than waiting for that time in lab, but still feels unnecessary poking around with precious parcel. It’s lady A egg so that’s very involved of not carrying.

Ah, the Torygraph missed that bit out, Gerti.

The question should always be "was all this completely unnecessary medical intervention in the best interests of the child?"

I'm voting "no, the women are a pair of self indulgent tossers."

She's already involved - it's her egg. I would file this I the "just because you can,doesn't mean you should" drawer.

And I am a mother of donor conceived children.

Serious question, if the capsule went up a man’s bum for six hours to be ‘incubated,’ could he call himself the dad?

It’s all bloody nonsense!

Read the site and the press release is sensationalism to grab headlines. It’s a procedure they think has benefits In IVF. Interested to know what that capsule is like to allow ‘cross talk’. Also they say may a lot with the benefits.

Why shouldn’t people?

Who is it harming?

Because it's an unnecessary medical procedure. Because it adds to the risk of something going wrong. Because it's not about the embryo, it's about playing pretend.

And adults should be beyond playing pretend. It's that kind of distorted thinking that has led to surrogacy becoming such a popular option.

What if something had happened to the embryo during the procedure - that wasn’t to save a life or for the benefit of the baby in any way? Shouldn’t the doctor consider the safety of the baby above all? The mums weren’t at risk.

JFC. ‘True family’. 😡

Taken directly from the website:

It is expected that the presence of the embryos in the maternal environment will lead to the mother being better prepared for, and more receptive to, embryo implantation. The embryos benefit at the start of their life, during the fertilisation and early development, from optimal conditions within the maternal environment. This is expected to optimize the production of highly competent embryos.

So, the benefit for the embryo is still only "expected" at this stage, not proven.

And even then, the potential benefits seem to be expected because of the mother being physiologically better prepared for implantation. So, transferring to a different uterus is counter intuitive.

The benifits to the embryo are not yet even proven, but slready the procedure has been hijacked for parental benefit.

And if the benefits are not established, I don't see how they can be certain there are no risks.

This was very confusing to me. Knowing how expensive IVF can be, why would a couple wish to mettle with a fragile embryo

Oops, meddle

Clearly wonderful news in that a much wanted baby to what seem to be very loving parents.

But the technicalities of the 'shared motherhood' procedure should be self-funded (in the same way of other optional parenting/child-raising extra experiences) if that is what people wish.

It is expected that the presence of the embryos in the maternal environment will lead to the mother being better prepared for, and more receptive to, embryo implantation.

That doesn't even make sense if they embryos are in having a brief holiday in another woman's uterus. How does that help the uterus of the woman they're eventually implanted into be better prepared?

Speaking as someone adopted, the use of "a true family" is pretty shitty.

Fucks sake. I’ll just pop and tell DD that we’re not a true family because she was never in my womb, shall I (adopted)?

To me it seems like a procedure entirely in the interests of the parents and not the child. Absolutely, it's the pinnacle of " its not fair! I want it too!!"