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.

Interesting ethically. We currently allow egg donation from living women, why not dead ones? That said, families who currently try and overrule an organ donors wishes (and tend to get their way) might have much more reason to do so if they believe the result would be their technical genetic relatives (and relatives of the deceased) being born. Organ donation is a personal choice and yet I can imagine many families being uncomfortable with this.

I wpuld happily donate my uterus, but not my eggs. I think it would be very unfair to my children and parents for there to be a child out there, which is biologically their sibling/grandchild and for them to have no legal right to a relationship with them.

From the child's pov, I think that biology and roots are really important - children have a right to know who they really are and where they come from.
Adoption is different - it's the best solution for children who already exist.

Think your OP is factually incorrect about the eggs.

Well, it’s worth noting that the reason why the law on egg/sperm donation was changed to make it possible for the children to trace their biological parents was because of the sense of non belonging the children of donated sperm/eggs often feel.

As a rule I don’t agree with sperm donation and/or surrogacy anyway but the idea of A, a child being told that their conception was as a result of the death of their parent who donated their ovaries, and B, any existing children of that parent knowing they potentially have biological siblings out there but that they will never know as the biological parent is dead and therefore the contact legalities would no longer apply surely has the potential to cause psychological issues for those children in the future. But we have to experiment for decades before drawing that conclusion as the results won’t know until any resulting children should grow up and potentially make their feelings known.

YABU

don’t let the facts get in the way of a bit of moral outrage will you?

The living recipient has her own ovaries and eggs. The baby is biologically hers.

Why is a womb so different to donating any other organ?

I can't see the problem - presumably the organ donater(s) did this of their own free will as did the organ receiver. Someone was kind enough to give the gift of motherhood to a stranger on their death - I don't see what is terrible about this?

The biological parent is NOT dead. It's the woman who received the transplant. Tge uterus has got nothing to do with being the biological mother.

Why did the woman need to have IVF - was it because it wasn’t possible to naturally implant fertilised eggs in the transplanted womb?

As long as the donor and recipient are happy about it I don't feel that anyone else gets to decide. Same goes for surrogacy etc. Fine if you are against, but your opinion should not ruin peoples lives if they are perfectly happy to do so.

Reading further about the uterus transplant threw this link up. They didn’t transplant the tissue that makes sperm due to ethical considerations so surely the same principle would apply for ovaries?

www.sciencenews.org/article/first-penis-scrotum-transplant-latest-go-beyond-lifesaving

@CloserIAm2Fine Quite!

OP if you're going to froth over a news story at least try and get your facts straight eh?

I have read the thread so know that the woman in question used her own eggs and a transplanted uterus. I wonder if ovary donation is a thing? I would consent to my uterus being donated but definitely not my ovaries/eggs. I don’t want anyone raising children who are biologically mine.

I have no idea why we need to do such things. There are 7 billion people on the planet...it's not like we were running low on people doing things the old fashioned way.

I’d be fine with it. Neither would be of any use to me when I’m dead.
Tbh I wish I could be a surrogate in life but I just know I wouldn’t be able to let go, but once I’m gone, if I can give a someone a child I’d gladly let them have anything they needed.
However if the dead lady didn’t explicitly consent yanbu at all.

If we're going to go full biology /ethics here, we'd also need to think about what we're saying when we go all "They're MINE, MY eggs".

A female fetus already has all HER eggs formed in her ovaries, so a pregnant woman expecting a daughter is carrying her own grandchildren. Whose eggs are those?

Is that sick and disgusting too, given that grandmothers die?

And who do the eggs in a girl child 'belong' to if she's then adopted by a non-blood-related family? Should her (dead) biological grandmother get a say in her reproductive choices, given that those eggs are kind of 'hers'?

If we're going to wring hands, let's wring 'em all the way to their logical conclusions...

Nothing like scaremongering with wrong information...

Presuming it's the story on BBC today which explicitly states:

'The recipient had Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome, which affects about one in every 4,500 women and results in the vagina and uterus (womb) failing to form properly.

However, her ovaries were fine. And doctors were able to remove eggs, fertilise them with the father-to-be's sperm and freeze them.'

Uterus, fine. Eggs, no way, I wouldn't want anyone else having my biological child apart from me.

"If we're going to go full biology /ethics here, we'd also need to think about what we're saying when we go all "They're MINE, MY eggs".

Because, they belong in my body? My house, my rules.

Gosh, once I’ve snuffed it, they can take what they like. It’s like DavidMitchell said: “We’ll, I’m not using it, help yourself!” Mind you, he was talking about necrophilia...

Ahem. Anyway. In death, as in life, each of us should be allowed to choose what happens to our own body.

I think this is where the woman is thinking more of her needs than of her child’s.

lady, if they are in your body, they are yours. It's simple enough. So a fetus (and the eggs contained within her) 'belong' to the pg woman until that baby is born. (Obviously within the confines of the law and what society considers ethical). Once born, the baby is her own person with rights over her own body (and eggs).

Because, they belong in my body? My house, my rules.

Read the rest of the post, Elf...

Ungenerous? Well fine, I don't mind if you don't think I'm playing nice with my genetic material.