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

[SummerGems]

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.

I’ve had fertility treatment. If my uterus is of any use to another infertile woman they can have it as soon as I’ve finished using it for this baby, they don’t have to wait for me to die.

I'd happily donate my uterus, im never using it. Not my eggs though, as i have a mh condition that can be genetic, it runs in my family and its crippled my life, i culdn't pass that on to someone else.

Its optional because it doesnt aid survival.

But here we go again, why is survival so important in relation to reproduction, particularly if you're talking about a 60 odd year old alcoholic vs a brand new child?

We also seem to forget that that child will be working to support the older generation.

Population renewal is fundamental. At least as important as survival of the older members of the population.

No, i mean that needing a new kidney isnt optional for the person who needs one. They either get one donated or they die. The person who doesnt get a uterus will be fine. Unless we are saying having your own biological child is a fundamental right, this is a frivolous thing. Population renewal could happen via those biology chose to be fertile.....

I was surprised when I heard of this. Not sure about this, but if it is to happen then there needs to be a greater form of consent than for other organs, and definitely not opt out.

I'd be happy for my uterus to be donated to give some other woman the chance to become a mother. I'm very fortunate that (thus far) I seem to have one that works well and can carry a child, but a lot of women aren't so fortunate and that's through no fault of their own. I've done nothing special to deserve a working reproductive system. My uterus is a vessel for growing and carrying a child. It doesn't contain genetic material or will magically create a baby that is somehow mine. It's no different to my other organs.

I don't know if I would donate my eggs, but that's not what happened in this instance so I'm not sure why that's become such a focus of this thread. It's something I would have think about. I wouldn't be entirely averse to being an egg donor for a close family member or friend, however. But I don't have ethical concerns about other people choosing to donate them, and it's something I'd at least consider.

The crux for me is that donating my uterus doesn't mean that someone else won't get my liver, heart, etc. It's not taking anything away from people who need life-saving measures; it's giving another opportunity to improve someone's quality of life.

But does it open the door to infertile women actively seeking a donated uterus in the quest to become a mother? And how should such transplants be funded? The NHS is skint and postcode rationing for IVF is a reality in many areas.

But how many women are infertile because they have no uterus? I would think it’s quite rare.

I agree that a debate needs to be had about the ethics of the assisted reproduction business. Egg donation is exploitative in many parts of the world including Eastern Europe.

As well as some of the points, what I found difficult, is that it's been developed in Brazil.

A Country that doesn't allow abortion and we've seen children having to give Birth, after rape. Women having to carry a Baby that wouldn't live long after Birth etc. Yet they've been happy to plough on with this. Which has meant lots of miscarriages and stillbirths.

There's been cases of Mothers donating their womb to their daughters, which is a better scenario than a Uterus from a dead Woman.

Wouldn’t it be possible biological that a women with a non functioning or non existent uterus could also pass that condition on to possible offspring. The same as other infertility. In which case you are breeding more and more infertile people that ultimately leads to a population unable to procreate without assistance. Scary thought.

I thought It was just her uterus, don’t think I read it was the dead woman’s eggs??

Heard this on the news earlier. I'm still not sure how I feel about it.

When you have a transplanted organ, don't you have to take drugs to suppress your immune system, so that your body doesn't reject it? How do those drugs affect the pregnancy/offspring? Do the doctors conducting this experiment (because let's face it - this is an experiment) even know that? I understood the few successful births mainly involved not just a live donor but one who was genetically connected (mother, sister) to minimise the likelihood of rejection. And that the womb had been removed again afterwards.

And I too wonder how the child will feel about it in adulthood. Some have mentioned the strong urge of the adults to procreate driving this, and others have posted on the strong urge for adopted/donor children to know their genetic inheritance. Where the donor was alive and related, I don't think this could upset the child. Dead and unrealted, I'm not so sure.

It's a minefield.

And as Birdsgottafly has pointed out, Brazil championing this experimental surgery does not sit well with me.

They can have my uterus but I would not consent to my eggs being used. My eggs = my children.
If I’m dead then I don’t want any children being produced from my eggs if I’m not around to raise them.

All the ‘you need a kidney, but not a uterus’ people. Would you donate your eyes? You don’t need to see to survive but I’d be happy to improve someone’s quality of life with my donated body parts (be they uterus or eyes or something else).

I think it’s brilliant. I’d be happy to donate mine should I die prematurely. Eggs is a different question; maybe not as I’m not sure that’s fair on my existing family, especially my children who would have half siblings out there somewhere. Otherwise I wouldn’t mind at all for myself (were I to be dead), I’d be quite happy to help.

Chillpizza I’m puzzled how you get from one or even a handful of women of billions having a rare disorder and no uterus to the entire population unable to procreate. Seems like a bit of a leap unless everyone is wiped out in some kind of extinction event type scenario...

A previous poster summed my thoughts up perfectly:

I don’t want my uterus/eggs used when I pass. Everything else they can have, but not these. They are not saving a life, they are being used to create life, and for me personally, that is not why I carry a donor card.

I’m taking all infertility that isn’t due to say cancer or accident requiring body part removal not just rare uterus issues.

Over many years genetically infertile people procreating with help could lead to genetic infertility being passed on over many years to their offspring eventually creating an infertile population.

It happens in animals certain breeds being bred actually create infertile offspring no reason it won’t or can’t happen in humans.

It is my understanding that the recipient used her own eggs from her own ovaries and these were fertilised with her partner's sperm. I think it is a very selfless thing to do of the donor and her family.

Have read the full thread. I can't remember individual names so I apologise.

I don't think a woman saying no to her reproductive organs being donated is ungenerous. I don't think women have to explain their reasons for choosing to not donate themselves at all. No should be enough. I kind of feel saying they need to explain their logic further or go beyond "it's mine" has an underpinning belief that they should be ok with it. I also don't think the women who want to donate should have to defend or explain their logic either.

A pp mentioned about being to hung up on genetics and to get over it. I'm guessing the reason the woman had a uterus transplant is because she wanted her own genetic children? Without a uterus she couldn't carry her own biological children. If biology and genetic is over rated then why the need for uterus and egg donations at all?

Planting a uterus in a Male wouldn't allow them to gestate a baby either. Even with sex reassignment surgery to mimic a female vagina, it would require more than a uterus planted inside a Male body to grow and carry a baby.

A lot of people have compared it to surrogacy and sperm donating. I think it's different. I've never heard anyone call the many many many men who don't donate their sperm ungenerous. I don't think I've ever heard anyone pressure the men who have never considered donating sperm to explain why not or go beyond "no"

I think there is already evidence that the sons of infertile men conceived with help can inherit the infertility.

I find the thought of giving my uterus & ovaries to other (infertile) woman unsettling. I think if it is just the uterus, I am open for debate....
But my eggs are my DNA, that lives on in my DC. It's private and personal. Not to be shared with a complete stranger that might not be able to understand all aspects of that DNA. Luckily I am to old for that kind of donation.

My heart (and other essential organs) has faithfully given me life, if when I pass away someone else can be given more life, why would I deny them this - my uterus and ovaries have allowed me to have children - which brought me undeniable joy (and challenges true!) and if after I have passed, someone else can use them to experience motherhood - good! :)
Personal choice.

Personally it would be a no from me. I'm all for organ donation to save lives but a uterus isn't essential to life. I also wouldn't be happy my eggs being given to another woman and having more biological children I knew nothing about.

I wouldn’t want to donate my uterus or eggs. It just reinforces the idea that motherhood is the be all and end all and nothing else really matters. I say this as someone who couldn’t have children.

As long as the operation isn't funded by the nhs then I don't see a huge issue. No way should public money be used for a ten hour operation which isn't for saving someone's life. Far different for kidney/lung/liver transplant etc. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should.