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 for those talking about how the donor is dead and therefore it doesn’t matter, does anyone remember a case in ireland a few years back when a pregnant woman was declared brain dead and the family were refused consent to turn off her life support because of the baby she was carrying? The medics (and the courts) wanted her kept alive until the baby could be delivered. There was outcry about that on here at the time, but is that really any different especially given the baby was already conceived?

You're wrong, OP, the recipient's ovaries were fine. And doctors were able to remove eggs, fertilise them with the father-to-be's sperm and freeze them (BBC website).

It was just the uterus that was transplanted from the dead woman.

So, fewer ethicla issues there.

I think it's a great idea. I'm an organ donar if anyone wants my uterus when I'm gone feel free, I won't need it.

Uterus - yes (although only to another female recipient), nobody would want it now as it’s old and scarred to buggery but they could have it if it could be of use. Ova, no.

I don’t think it’s fair on a child that is born of a dead women’s eggs that they can never have the opportunity for contact or to know their genetic heritage. I also think it might be psychologically difficult to come to terms with knowing that your biological mother was dead before you were conceived.

I’m not a fan of centering adults needs and wishes above the welfare of children.

That's me off the list. No way is a biological male having my womb.

Womb donation I have no issue with. I'm not fully comfortable with the prospect of my eggs being donated after I die, but if another woman consents to it then that's her business. I'm not entirely sure whether I agree with the idea of it but haven't thought it through enough to decide whether I'm just irrationally thinking it's a bit ick...

From a practical perspective, at least with sperm banks/eggs donated while the donor is living the child would potentially be able to trace their biological lineage, and I imagine there is a clear process to find out at least some details about the donor (ie either the donor is known to the parents or there is information available that was provided by the donor upon donation), but happy to be corrected if that's wrong.

If a child was conceived through egg donation by a deceased woman would there be any way to find out even the basics about her biological mother? How would this be tracked in the child's medical records? Would they be informed of any of the health risks that affect, e.g the bio mother's female siblings later in life that could be genetically linked (particularly if the bio mother died at a young age before symptoms would develop)? Would the eggs be harvested and stored in a bank as routine or used on an 'recently deceased and therefore available' basis? Would the recipients have a choice of eggs (e.g they want the eggs of a woman with the same or similar skin colour or physical attributes so as not to make it obvious the child isn't biologically the mother's)? Would they have the right to trace their biological relatives? It raises so many questions, but I do think the key one is whether it's an opt in situation that is made clear to women when they are signing up to be organ donors.

I also imagine from the child's perspective, finding out half of your genetic material comes from someone that wasn't even alive at the time of your conception would be really strange and potentially unpleasant to deal with, on top of the normal complicated feelings that can accompany finding out your conception was as a result of donation.

I don't know much about organ donation at all so some of this may actually be fairly obvious to others Sorry for the thought stream, I know it isn't actually relevant to this case but it's certainly an interesting discussion.

And that’s before you factor in the potential cost of all this experimentation.

But you would neevr ever discover anything new or carry out any new medical procedure without experimentation!

You say you're likely to need an organ transplant in future. Well, no norgan transplants would be possible without experimentation. YABVU.

Yanbu to decide it's something you want no part of.

Yabu to describe it as wrong and sick.

Yabvvvu to correlate the case of the dead pregnant Irish woman with this.

Yes I think whether OP has children or not is relevant due to this comment -

That it’s right to create children where there is no biological parent just because someone has infertility?

And she does, which I knew anyway, as this gives her the privilege to think this way without actually suffering the consequences.

She's also started the whole thread based on false information as there was no 'child born of a dead woman's eggs'.

A child born of a donated uterus has NO biological connection to the previous owner of said uterus.

I am extremely short-sighted, so on that basis have stated I wouldn't want my corneas donated (they would be useless, it's nothing to do with my soul) but am totally on board with everything else.

The medics (and the courts) wanted her kept alive until the baby could be delivered. There was outcry about that on here at the time, but is that really any different especially given the baby was already conceived?

That case bears no relation to this one. What did you want the Irish doctors to do, stop life support and let the baby die??

I understand why people wouldn’t want to donate their ovaries and that’s totally fine. And I think people should have a totally free choice over whatever organs they do or don’t donate, and that’s fine too. But I must confess I don’t see how donating a uterus (not ovaries, but uterus) is different from any other organ.

Not all organ donations are life-saving. Sometimes they just help a person do something they couldn’t do before (like see). It’s up to the individual what they want to donate but I can’t see a logical difference between a uterus and any other organ.

Uterus is just an organ so objection to that is like objecting to heart transplant because of emotional connotation. Logically you are in favour of transplant or not, though it is your right to say no to specific organ.
Ovaries and testicles are different because they produce eggs and sperm which require a different consent, because your DNA is transmitted through generations creating biological relatives you don't know about. A known donor or surrogate or family adoption is the exception.
Infertility is a medical condition so should be treated on nhs, like any other. Agree there are enough people in the world but there are ethical issues and human rights. Limiting families didn't work out well in China. No issue with ivf and your owns gametes/DNA, it's just expensive plumbing, plus heartache in many cases.
Donating sperm and eggs is not the same as surrogacy or adoption, there are many more checks done on adoptive parents, I presume because a live child is involved. Many people unsuitable for adoption can have donor insemination, ivf or embryo transplant (or surrogacy with some legal requirements).
This would be my issue with donating eggs, I would be giving my biological offspring to unknown recipients who may not be suitable. Same as a one night stand? Many adoptions fail, I don't know about surrogacy or donor conception, but many of those babies are related to one of the parents. Complicated.

That case bears no relation to this one. What did you want the Irish doctors to do, stop life support and let the baby die?? actually that was exactly what posters on here at the time were arguing should happen.

The medics (and the courts) wanted her kept alive until the baby could be delivered.

No you are wrong. The High Court ruled that life support could be switched off.

People make far too much fuss about genetic connections as it is, and should start to get over it. Family are the people who look after you, after all - whether there's a bio connection or not really doesn't make any difference (don't forget all those bio-parents who abuse and even kill their DC) I don't give a toss what bits of me someone else wants when I go - whether that's to implant and walk around with, perform bizarre sex acts on or hang on their walls as part of some radical art installation.

If it's any good by the time I'm dead, I'm more than happy for my uterus to be used by anyone who can benefit from it. My eggs and ovaries I'd be more unsure about but that's because I know I could never donate an egg while I live as I'd see any child from my egg, as mine. If I was dead that's obviously not an issue, so it's something I'd have to think about. I think I would agree to them going to a close family member but I'd probably talk it through a lot with DS as any child would be his half sibling, so he'd have to be ok with it.

But it went to court because of the Irish pro life laws. And even on this thread someone has already said that the doctors shouldn’t have switched off the life support.

Incidentally I didn’t disagree that they should, but it was an ethical minefield at the time. The very fact it had to go to court speaks volumes on that point.

People make far too much fuss about genetic connections as it is, and should start to get over it. Family are the people who look after you, after all - whether there's a bio connection or not really doesn't make any difference

Unless you’ve grown up without a connection to a genetic parent I think it’s very unreasonable to say this.

I feel ok about the uterus being donated (although not sure I’d want to donate mine, as it’s not life saving) but the ovaries / eggs to me is wrong. Even if the donater has agreed to it prior to death I still feel it is wrong for the child who may then be conceived from those eggs. I personally don’t feel a child should be brought into the world purposely knowing their biological mother is already dead. That really could be a hard thing to process psychologically and my opinion is that it’s not right and just because it can be done it doesn’t mean it should be done.

I wouldn’t want any of my reproductive organs/parts being harvested alive or dead.

I have many silblings that I know exist but don’t actually know and possibly more I’m unaware of. In the city I actually live in around my age who could of god forbid ended up my bf/dh without careful questioning. That was hard enough.

I don’t believe in sperm or egg donation at all for those reasons. It leads to siblings who don’t actually know each other till it’s possibly too late leading to accidental insest and marriage of siblings.

As were her family, partner and children, SummerGems. And her doctors. They doctors just didn't want to be prosecuted for it.

Do you think they might have had a better idea of what was going to happen than you?

For some reason, they found the the idea of watching the body of a loved one very slowly decaying in a bed a bit disgusting.

@BertramKibbler
People make far too much fuss about genetic connections as it is, and should start to get over it. Family are the people who look after you, after all - whether there's a bio connection or not really doesn't make any difference

Unless you’ve grown up without a connection to a genetic parent I think it’s very unreasonable to say this.

This is exactly how my DH feels about it having grown up with a Dad who isn't biologically related after his actual father fucked off before he was born. He has ZERO interest in finding him or anyone else he may be related to.

Oh ok OP I get it now, you think organ donation should be governed by your own hang ups, rather than agreed by the process of ethical debate.

Am living the mental image of you sitting little Timmy down and explaining to him that he was born "using the uterus of a dead woman". I can guarentee you that my two wouldnt be even slightly interested - the 10 year old would be worried I was about tk start talking to him about sex and the 13 year old would probably think it cool.