Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To find the idea of uterus donation and having the babies of a dead woman wrong and sick?

365 replies

SummerGems · 05/12/2018 09:39

In general I am a supporter of organ donation. I do believe it’s a personal thing but for me the idea of donating the majority of my organs has never presented a problem. Until today.

Apparently a woman has given birth after receiving the donated uterus of a dead woman. Moreover, the babies she gave birth to were from the woman’s ovaries and eggs which were fertilised subsequent to her death.

Now, I am fully aware that people are going to say that it’s wonderful, that you can’t possibly know until you’ve been through fertility issues etc etc etc. But I personally think this is a step too far.

Obviously the people in question had choices and so on, but really, just because something can be done,doesn’t mean that it should. Are we really to believe that those children will be comfortable with the idea that they were conceived of a dead woman’s ovaries? That it’s right to create children where there is no biological parent just because someone has infertility? Not to mention the fact that according to the news reports all previous donations have resulted in miscarriages?

If uterus donation were to become a mainstream accepted thing I would be ticking the box to say that I didn’t consent. And if it were all or nothing I would refuse to be any kind of organ donor if it meant my uterus and/or my eggs would be donated.

OP posts:
gladiatorgirl · 05/12/2018 17:00

I haven't read all the pages so this might have already been said but - just ask the new mum how she feels having her own baby at last. It must feel like a miracle. I wish her and her family lots of happiness.

BruegelTheEIder · 05/12/2018 17:00

Also, what if you donate your other organs and one or more saves the life of a person who later commits murder, or some other heinous crime?

That could potentially happen with any of your organs. So if you're worried about potential unhappiness, you probably shouldn't donate anything.

icannotremember · 05/12/2018 17:08

If I have children myself, I can predict with some certainty what kind of parent I am going to be.

Uh, you may be able to say what kind of parent you'd like to be, or think that you will be. You cannot predict with any certainty what kind of parent you will actually be.

icannotremember · 05/12/2018 17:09

btw babes happy 18th birthday your also technically not my biological child and your biological mum is dead she donated me her uterus and eggs 😳 that wouldn't mess with your head would it.

Well, it probably would, if the parent was enough of a twat to announce it like that Confused.

Yura · 05/12/2018 17:12

once i’m done with my organs i really don’t care what happens to them. if i’m dead i’d rather have somebody else benefitting from them than them just rotting away

Lweji · 05/12/2018 17:12

And this was precious:
If an alcoholic gets a donated liver, they might repent and try their best to stay away from alcohol. The organ has a chance.

So, there's a "potential" for the liver to be "rescued", in the off chance that the alcoholic repents.

But, the off chance that the child might not be happy is enough for a womb not merit transplant, apparently.

Solid reasoning.

minipie · 05/12/2018 17:18

Uterus absolutely fine.

Ovaries and eggs - no.

But I see the recipient only used the uterus anyway. So a non issue IMO.

Those saying a uterus is not essential to life so they wouldn’t donate it. Would you refuse to donate corneas, because sight isn’t essential? Kidneys, because dialysis exists?

HestiaParthenos · 05/12/2018 17:20

You are aware that people need livers to survive, but don't need an uterus to survive?

While we are at it: Females can use an uterus transplant to gestate a baby.

Males can't. If you give a transwoman your uterus, the uterus will sit there for two years, after which doctors will advise to remove it and stop taking the immunosuppressants required for the body to not reject it, and nothing will have changed.

HestiaParthenos · 05/12/2018 17:22

Those saying a uterus is not essential to life so they wouldn’t donate it. Would you refuse to donate corneas, because sight isn’t essential? Kidneys, because dialysis exists?

Don't be ridiculous. Being dependent on dialysis or not being able to see hugely reduces quality of life.

Not having children may be sad, but it doesn't mean that you cannot read a book or travel to a faraway place with no access to modern medicine.

HJWT · 05/12/2018 17:30

@minipie that is the stupidest argument Iv ever heard 😂 sight is an essential for a 'normal life' a uterus/ baby is not!

JacquesHammer · 05/12/2018 17:31

That is WRONG.... btw babes happy 18th birthday your also technically not my biological child and your biological mum is dead she donated me her uterus and eggs 😳 that wouldn't mess with your head would it

If only you had read the article and thread...

Lweji · 05/12/2018 17:31

You are aware that people need livers to survive, but don't need an uterus to survive?

But that was not the argument, was it?

While we are at it: Females can use an uterus transplant to gestate a baby. Males can't.

How do you know?

Not having children may be sad, but it doesn't mean that you cannot read a book or travel to a faraway place with no access to modern medicine.

TBH, this sort of argument reads like a Turing Test.

minipie · 05/12/2018 17:33

Reading a book and travelling to faraway places aren’t essential either Hestia.

I just wonder where the line is drawn. Essential to life... not essential to life but essential to have a “normal” life... not essential to a normal life but essential (to some people) for a happy life...

SummerGems · 05/12/2018 17:34

And I also think it matters not one jot what you think OP. If you don't agree with it, don't donate yours. Simples. actually it isn’t that simple. As the law currently stands it isn’t actually the final decision of the deceased which carries weight of donation but the next of kin. As a result, if NOK were to disagree with a uterus transplant (or any other organs for that matter) on moral grounds they would be able to override the deceased’s wish to do so should this procedure become a mainstream normality.

Even on this thread there are posters who state that they wouldn’t donate their uterus on the basis that it might e.g. go to a trans woman, just by way of an example.

I personally disagree with the donating of uteruses on ethical grounds and that is my prerogative, but there comes a clash when a NOK has a specific moral or ethical conflict with certain organs being donated.

Now, on the whole I don’t disagree with kidneys, livers, corneas hearts etc being donated because I don’t personally have any moral objections to those, and no, I don’t believe that it’s the same as donating a uterus without which a woman could not have children. But it’s not essential to life in the same way that a kidney or heart is.

Therefore, while I previously had thought that I wouldn’t override a person’s wishes to donate their organs in the event of their death, this for me changes things and I would override the wishes of someone to donate their uterus. And I would like to bet that I’m not the only one,especially if it transpired that uteruses were being donated to trans women and that trans women were even being put ahead of infertile women on the basis of a match.

It’s far too simplistic to say that if you don’t agree with it then don’t do it. But a uterus opens up a huge ethical minefield which will need to be overcome if this is ever to become a normality.

OP posts:
chillpizza · 05/12/2018 17:34

It’s just another case of life at all costs. Medical science is a wonderful thing but it’s being taken too far in many aspects.

Not everyone is meant to have babies, not everyone is going to live to 100, not every pregnancy leads to a healthy baby.

Keep tweaking with all of these things is just storing up huge problems care/money and Health wise.

We have the elderly being kept alive when animals would be put out of their misery as it would be inhunane, babies being kept alive who will never leave hospital or if they do will be constantly vented/tube fed/unable to walk/talk etc, babies being created for couples who would never naturally have babies due to possibly genetic conditions that can be passed on.

I believe we have gone too far with medical science and life at all costs.

icannotremember · 05/12/2018 17:35

@HJWT you don't think blind people are normal?

icannotremember · 05/12/2018 17:38

As a result, if NOK were to disagree with a uterus transplant (or any other organs for that matter) on moral grounds they would be able to override the deceased’s wish to do so should this procedure become a mainstream normality.

Indeed. We really need to take the decisions out of the hands of NoK. It's not right at all that they get to override the wishes of the deceased.

Elphie54 · 05/12/2018 17:39

I guess you disagree with adoption as well?

OnlineAlienator · 05/12/2018 17:42

I would donate my uterus - its a vessel - but not my eggs. Those kids would be my kids and id want to be their mum. I do think the operation to put my uterus in someone else is a costly frivolity though. Easy for me to say as a biological mum, but i do think there comes a point where you need to accept you cant give birth to your own biological child, sadly.

snowone · 05/12/2018 17:48

I would have no problem in donating either my uterus or even my eggs if I meant that someone who had longed for children could have them. I have PCOS so they probably wouldn't want my ovaries and my uterus is currently in use growing my own baby. But after that should anything happen I would gladly let a donor have them Smile

Lweji · 05/12/2018 17:51

Speaking as a biologist, but also as someone who never had an overwhelming drive to reproduce, don't underestimate the drive to reproduce.
We are organisms whose ultimate drive is to... reproduce. Survival is important in as much as it enables... reproduction.
There are many cases of pregnant women who prefer to put their lives at risk but have a child.
In that respect, a liver given to someone who's already past their reproductive years is less vital than a womb given to a woman who is producing eggs.
One saves a life, the other enables the creation of a new life.

Why would some people be happy donating this same woman a liver when she's, say, 60, but not a womb when she's 30 for her to have a child?

OnlineAlienator · 05/12/2018 17:54

Plenty of people cant or wont produce children. Are we saying its a basic right just because we have the instinct to do it? I love biology too but not sure its the best to reduce everything in life down to it. What IS the point of mindlessly producing more humans?

user1499173618 · 05/12/2018 17:54

TBH there is the drive to reproduce and also the drive to transmit (culture, language, knowledge).

Alpacanorange · 05/12/2018 17:55

I agree with the words, because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

user1499173618 · 05/12/2018 17:55

And the drive to create. The drive to dominate or win.