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.

And as harsh as it sounds, someone's else's infertility is not my problem or my responsibility

Which is your right, absolutely.

It isn't wrong for people to hold the opposing opinion.

I don't think my crap and infertile womb and ovaries would be any good, but if they turn out to be and could help some other woman have a child, then I'm happy for her to take the lot!

I'm not horrified by the idea. If I'm gone I don't need it. Same with heart, kidneys, etc - I'm happy to donate organs, and my uterus isn't anything special.

I'd also consider surrogacy and egg donation. Biology is only a small aspect of parenthood.

If the deceased had given her consent then I think it's ok. I have a child conceived via donor eggs and my husband's sperm. I have lots of my own eggs but I did not want to pass on a potentially life altering condition so we decided to use donor eggs. We will both be forever grateful to our donor. To be a donor you have to see the egg as a piece of material and not a future child. Epigentics is also an interesting aspect of research for potential donor egg recipients.

“While you have the right to refuse consent to your heart, lungs etc being donated without justifying yourself we very much have the right to judge for your choice. (You may not care about our judgement - that's your perogative but having the right to do something doesn't mean you have the right to do it without judgement.).”

Fucks sake. How Patronising and Self important??? Judge away. I am judging you too. Presumably, you care as little as I do about that.
I am Used to being unfairly judged at every turn anyway, I am a woman after all.

Next up will be a breakthrough in sex reassignment surgery, when they transplant the whole assembly into one of those nice trans people.

I WOULD be uncomfortable with my uterus being transplanted into a biological man - but an infertile woman, no.

I wonder if I'm alone in not understanding this (hypothetical!) possessiveness over 'my biological children'? For me, it's the gestation, birth and (above all else) love and care thereafter which has made me my children's mother. I can't imagine being so ungenerous of spirit as to refuse my eggs to someone - after my death! - because then someone else would 'have my biological children'. My DNA would still be out there - that's a nice legacy. But they wouldn't be my children. They'd come from my 'material', but not from my 'process'.

100% with you on this, @AnElderlyLadyOfMediumHeight.

I plan to donate my eggs while I'm alive. I am already on the organ donor register. I don't think it's that much more of a step to donating either my uterus or (hypothetically, as that was not the case in this situation) my ovaries.

I'm expecting a baby at the moment and it feels like a huge joy and privilege to me - I wouldn't grudge anybody else that experience if they wanted it, and I'd be glad that after death I could give someone that gift. Presumably if my ovaries and uterus were still good to go, I'd have died in an unexpected and untimely manner - obviously I'd prefer that didn't happen, but for me it would be all the more incentive to pass on something good.

My children are my whole world and I love them to pieces. If I had died I would be very happy to know that my uterus was used to give another family the children they so desperately wanted. (though I do hope to live a long life watching my own kiddies grow up of course.)

I would also happily donate eggs, no strings attached to give someone the opportunity to have children.

It's not something I would consent to, just as I wouldn't offer to donate my eggs.

I WOULD be uncomfortable with my uterus being transplanted into a biological man - but an infertile woman, no.

Yeah, I see a very wordy ticky box appearing on consent forms some time soon.

I would be concerned about the potential safety of a baby carried in a donated uterus. If something doesn't go right with the transplant, that baby is at risk, and it's not like they can give consent. The risks would outweigh the benefits for me and I wouldn't donate my uterus. Anything else, have at it, because it's your own risk you're consenting to.

OP do you have children???

I have no issues with donating my uterus - it is after all no use to me once I'm dead. For me personally my eggs would depend on circumstances. If I died now, probably not, as I have young children and a husband I feel that decision would be up to them - not quite sure. Though my husband is very logical and would probably think nothing of it and donate them.

However - I don't have this overwhelming feeling that biology is the be all and end all. I feel it is a very small part of actually being a parent or relative for that matter. I have friends I would save in a fire before some family members even though we are biologically related.
My OHs dad is not his 'biological' dad, but he has zero interest in finding him or finding any relatives he probably has but is unaware of.

I would be concerned about the potential safety of a baby carried in a donated uterus.

Does that mean we should question the right of women with genetic conditions which they may pass on or whose physiology or health (diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure etc) to carry and birth their own babies, because the risk to the baby is higher and the baby cannot consent to that?

I cannot see any problem with this at all, an organ donation does not have to save a life but improve the life of the recipient, hence I've no problem with cornea transplants to improve vision or skin, hair frequently transplanted to burn patients, stem cell donations, and even limb transplants have been in the news , of course a womb is no different, but if you only want life saving transplants or its nothing from you then go with nothing.

As for egg donation / sperm so many people donate while alive, many don't like the idea, that's a personal choice, but if I was willing to donate eggs when alive why would I not donate when dead ? and if I were a donor I would not 'be around', nor consider myself the parent of the offspring I know nothing about. What difference does it matter to the child to be told they came about through the kind donation of another, if that donor was alive or dead.

My mothers father died when her mother was 3 months pregnant with my dm, was her mother supposed to abort rather than have the baby of a dead man? of course not.
Of course you can decide something is not for you, just like say some religious beliefes would not take blood, but to say it in itself is sick and wrong is what is very very wrong.

What I do find ungenerous is very specifically this idea of 'they are my potential children so nobody else can have them

It's not ungenerous. It's a basic biological response to feel strongly that your biological children are yours and no one else's.

A uterus of a dead woman is a piece of rotting meat. That same uterus in a live person is the bearer of life. So OP I think you are chatting rubbish.

There never seems to be a thought about what the children born of these new technologies will think. Adults often say it will be fine. But we know from sperm donation that the law had to be changed as many children born of sperm donation did not see it just as sperm, but as their biological dad, and wanted to know who he was.

What I do find ungenerous is very specifically this idea of 'they are my potential children so nobody else can have them

This is crazy. There’s also the potential child. We tend to want to know our biological roots. There’s an urge to know if we have our mothers eyes or our fathers nose. I don’t think it’s selfish to want to avoid that for our own biological offspring

I don't have a problem if the donor had consented but in reality I think it's highly unlikely that she did consent to have her eggs used and I'm very troubled by that.

Someone mentioned sperm donation upthread but that is a voluntary action done with explicit consent and knowledge that the sperm will be used to create a baby. A more accurate comparison would be to suggest that any man who has signed an organ donor card is agreeing to have his sperm harvested after his death, which as far as I know is not current practice except in specific situations when the man's partner has applied to a court to do so.

This isn't a question of whether you or I mind having our eggs used (I don't actually) but a question of consent and awareness that being an organ donor may now include our eggs and a child that we are biologically the parent of may result.

@SoundofSilence I believe there is a heightened risk for any pregnancy for a donor recipient, irrespective of the donor organ, because of medication that has to be taken, I certainly know this is true of a relative of mine with a donated kidney, she has been told any pregnancy would be extremely high risk to them both, she decided thefore not to have children, but was surprised at the number who do decide to go ahead.

Biology may not be important to someone donating their biological material however there is no knowing whether that biology might be important to the products i.e. the children born of those donations.

Biology is someone’s heritage, and as such it is important to a lot of people to know where they have come from. It’s the overriding reason why the laws have been changed around anonymity of egg/sperm donors because the resulting children have expressed a need to know their heritage and be able to trace their biological family. In addition it is also why some of the rules around adoption have changed to enable continued contact between adopted children and their biological parents.

And the change in the laws on anonymity have also been ascribed as a reason why the levels of donations have dropped significantly. So regardless of what a few people here say, biology is very clearly important to a lot of people.

As for this: “While you have the right to refuse consent to your heart, lungs etc being donated without justifying yourself we very much have the right to judge for your choice. (You may not care about our judgement - that's your perogative but having the right to do something doesn't mean you have the right to do it without judgement.).” yes it does. People’s reasons for not wanting to donate organs are theirs and theirs alone. Added to which, it is very easy to sit in judgement of those who choose not to donate organs when you are not personally in a position of having to receive one.

I am likely to need an organ transplant in the future. Added to which I have friends who are currently awaiting organ transplants, kidneys etc. Not one of those people sits in judgement of the people not wanting to donate their organs, because the very process of knowing you need an organ is to know that you are waiting for someone to die in order that you receive one. To add the idea into the mix that not only are you waiting for someone to die but that you would judge someone who wasn’t on the register and who isn’t actually dead yet but obviously by judging them you’d be hoping for them to die so you could have their organs is unthinkable.

According to the BBC the recipients ovaries were fine and the children she gave birth to via the donated uterus were biologically hers.

In theory I get what you said in your OP, when I saw the headline on the news website I though oh its all getting a bit Frankenstein to me. Then I looked into it a bit more and figured that we donate everything else and can't take it with us so why not. Its personal preference at the end of the day. Some people wouldn't give their eyes as they are meant to be a window to the soul some would give everything.

I don't see how this is any different to adoption or sperm banks or surrogacy or anything like that?

What about if a woman dies in childbirth and the baby is adopted? Is that also wrong because the child has no living biological mother?

I just don't really understand where the problem lies here.

I would have no problem donating my uterus but not my eggs

Which is weird now i think of it as I did think of egg donation a few years ago so its obviously not completely wrong to me

As long as there was consent given for both (i know its not the case here) I can't see a problem

I probably have more of a problem with lots of eggs being harvested for no reason but i dont know if thats even possible