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.

Whether you think people should care about biological parents or not is irrelevant. Many children brought up by non biological parents do care about it.

Yes but it’s simply not true to state (as you did) that the courts wanted the life support continued. They did not. If you’re going to cite the case, at least make sure you’re not citing it incorrectly.

Moreover, the position of the HSE and the medics treating “PP” was at least partially derived from confusion and uncertainty over the boundaries and duties imposed by the 8th amendment, as distinct from holding pro-life views themselves (indicated by a failure to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court).

And many don’t, abu

We cannot not have children purely on the basis they may decide in the future they don’t want to be here.

Different issues, the baby in the life support case was not yet viable, the father, and woman's parents wanted to do what was thought best for the mother I think. I doubt that would have been the same wherever there is legal abortion even if limited. The health of the mother is prioritised over the foetus. We often wrestle with rights of adults v children in child care, adoption and medical consent. Not yet conceived children have less rights, medical ethics are poorer since committees (warnock etc)which advised legislation discontinued. scientist always want to go to the limit because they can. Not always wise or safe.

We cannot not have children purely on the basis they may decide in the future they don’t want to be here. but the laws have been changed to revoke anonymity on the basis that many children do have an issue with the biological aspect of their conception.

As for telling me that I don’t want uterus donations because of my own hang ups, isn’t all organ donation like that though? There are people who wouldn’t donate their corneas for instance because of their thoughts around donating a part of their eyes and what their eyes mean to them. There are people on this thread who state that they would donate their uterus just not to a trans woman, yet if a trans woman wants a uterus donation this may well be permitted under future laws if this process were to become universally accepted.

If ovaries and testes were part of the donation process I can imagine that many NOK would even override their child, or their husband or wife’s wish to donate in that instance. In fact I can imagine that there would be men who would override the wish of their wife to donate her uterus in that instance as well...

A part of a person’s reproductive organs is far far different to donating a heart or kidneys or liver, it only has an impact on one individual - the individual whose life is altered because of it.

The law changing isn’t recent. We generally believe it is better to be honest with children now. Telling a child they were born through egg/sperm donation is very different to not having them at all!

Why do women have to go beyond ‘it’s mine’? That’s enough. Biological property and will over own bodies. Women have spent far too long justifying their right to make decisions about their own bodies and even longer conceding it for others with a greater sense of entitlement. Sod that.

I would happily donate my uterus, although it's fairly knackered after 7 pregnancies and 2 c-sections. Not my eggs though.

Yes exactly. Laws have been changed to reflect grown up adults wishes. So I am old enough to remember adults who adopted saying it didn't matter about the adoptive parents, they were not the real parents and their children did not need to know anything about them. And then that it did not matter who sperm donors or egg donors were, as they were not the parents. Both changed after lobbying from adults adopted or born from donation.
The law HAS to protect children born from new technologies. Because a heck of a lot of infertile couples don't seem to be able to imagine how unborn children may feel about these things.

The law didn’t change ‘for’ that reason, although it was one of the reasons but in any event, I’m unsure what you’re saying. I don’t think anyone is denying honestly is better and sometimes vital. However, that doesn’t mean it won’t be happening at all.

It was a key reason.

But some reproductive technologies are banned. So a woman can not use a dead Husbands sperm to create a baby if he had not given permission - court case happened over this.

Just as you can't buy a baby legally. There has to be legal limits because some infertile couples seem to have none.

Personally I like the idea of people benefitting from my body when I'm gone. It may not be life saving but it is life changing.
My own mother had a cornea transplant, which wasn't life saving either but it has improved her quality of life a whole lot. I'm sure helping a woman become a mother has the same effect.

I'll be dead - I don't need it anymore. If I had the chance to help someone, why not? Don't see any issues personally.

You might not, but the children born from it might?

I don't think you have read this story thoroughly - the recipient of the uterus had her own ovaries and eggs but no uterus due to a rare condition. That said, I see no issue with this provided there is consent from the donor (as with any organ donation).

The comments over this seems similar to the Diane Blood case where she successfully sought to use her deceased husband's sperm to have a baby - even had the donor's eggs been used I don't think I would see moral difference. There has also been a well-publicised case of uterus donation within a family in the UK; does the moral status of the organ change that dramatically once the donor has died, if it was given voluntarily?

If uterus donation became feasible I would be equally happy to donate mine on my death as any other organ, I don't think it is somehow more sacrosanct than my heart or corneas.

I haven't fully made up my mind yet, but I can't see it as a big issue and it seems you are confusing different issues, OP. Donating eggs is not the same as donating a uterus.

Eggs, sperm and embryos have been donated and used for quite a few years now, in case you missed it. Some donors could easily be dead by the time they are used. It's different to take them from people who died before consenting.

But a uterus is just an organ. It's not very different from a blood transfusion. I can't think how upset a future child might be unless you tell them their pregnancy was wrong and sick. There's no transfer of genetic material.

There are people on this thread who state that they would donate their uterus just not to a trans woman, yet if a trans woman wants a uterus donation this may well be permitted under future laws if this process were to become universally accepted.

Then those people will just have to accept that they won't be donors. Either you are happy to donate knowing you have no say in what happens to your organs/ blood/ etc, or you are not. We cannot have a system where receipt of an organ/ blood/ etc depends on whether the donor thinks the person getting it is worthy.

I doubt my scarred uterus would be particularly desirable for transplanting anyway so it's probably a moot point on uterus alone but I would not want to donate my uterus after death to an unknown person.

It is not life saving, and creating a high risk pregnancy beyond my ability to consent does not sit easily with me. There is a high risk of physical and mental harm (rejection of organ, usual range of pregnancy risks, harm caused by loss of pregancy/ baby). I did tick the box for corneas on the grounds that they aren't much use to me and I won't be squeamish about it after my death. I'm not really aware of organs like my kidneys and liver ticking along happily. I do notice my lungs and heart (particularly at the end of a long run ) but they are constants and supporting my life. Yes, I notice my reproductive organs. I feel ovulation pains. I feel my uterus contract monthly and it's efforts at having birthed DCs (with mixed success at doing the job by itself). I would not want to be a surrogate in life for mental and physical reasons, and I do not want my reproductive organs to be used beyond my death. There are consequences far beyond my bodily autonomy and the body of the recepient.

I grew up in a complex family situation. The most important people are those who love, support and provide stability to a child, but biology can form deep connections too. I've sat in a classroom not knowing if my cousin on the other side of the room to me knew if I even existed, let alone knew if he had a cousin in the room. That was a headfuck moment for a teenager. I met my paternal family in adulthood, and I understand myself better for it. I could not give away my eggs lightly, if at all. It could have consequences on my DCs if there is uncertainty over the existence of unknown siblings. I don't morally object to sperm and egg donation, but it's not right for me. Donating in life gives people chance to revoke their consent. Donating beyond death is something I am not comfortable with (except giving a mother and children full siblings with the consent of the father prior to his death) Sperm is less intimate than eggs. It is ejaculated away from the body, whereas a female is born with her eggs and gestates them until the baby is capable of survival.

I don't think it's necessarily moraly wrong, but I find the potential range of consequences too messy and deep to want to consider donating my reproductive system after death.

I must re-read The Brave New World...

If some bit of my biological material (because that's all my body is when I'm dead) can help someone after I am gone, they are more than welcome to it. If my uterus can help build a family then wonderful. They can have my eggs too if they are of use although I'm 46 now and not planning on heading off anytime soon and they are also probably not much use to anyone anymore...

Any scrap of me that can be used to improve someone else's lot is theirs to have.

I think this is progress. Egg and sperm donation are much more problematic IMO as children are not biologically related to one or both of their parents which creates genetic dissimilarities that can be very hard to manage. I believe very strongly that children need and deserve to be brought up by their biological parents whenever possible.

I would donate but don’t think I would want to undergo a transplant myself.

I think that any woman with a fully functioning uterus would find it hard to imagine the feelings of a woman without one.

She must have had to take anti rejection drugs, which presumably did not harm the baby?

user1499173618, I agree with you.

People who are infertile really must be given more status and encouraged to be fulfilled in other ways. They have more freedom to make a contribution to society if they have no children. Many do and are quite happy.

This story smacks of desperation and feeling they have a right to a child. No-one has the right to have a child, it is a privilege and blessing but there are other blessings in life.