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.

The ovaries were not from the dead woman!

SummerGems - neither would I ever have wanted to have a conversation with a child of mine to explain that they were born from the uterus of a dead woman.

How would that conversation really be much different from one about having a donated heart or liver?

It's essentially the same thing. You could be telling a child that one of their parents, or even the child themselves, are only alive because someone died and they received a donated organ, because organ donation is a wonderful thing we can do nowadays so that something good happens out of something tragic. Or you're telling them that they are only alive because someone died and you received a donated organ which is a wonderful thing we can do nowadays so that something good happens out of something tragic.

Completely don't understand how you can draw such a line between a uterus and a heart.

This thread has Forthcoming Jodi Picoult Novel written all over it.

As a rule I don’t agree with sperm donation and/or surrogacy anyway

Can I ask your reasons why OP?

Wouldnt want to donate my uterus - non essential to human life.

Your corneas aren’t essential either but they make somebody else’s life so much easier and happier, and their family or those around them benefit from this.

I don’t see how this is really any different to egg donation.

CBA to RTFT. I'd be honoured for the old gal to carry on cranking out babies after I'd gone. How wonderful to be able to give someone that gift. I'd donate it now, my family is done and I am sick to death of horrible periods.

I'm not sure I agree with some users who are stating very firmly there can be no right to have a child. We are currently living in a system where we loosely assume there is; for example, under certain criteria infertile people can access fertility services in the NHS.

I also am not convinced that properly answers any questions about uterus donation; it is possible and many will be happy to donate and receive them, so I'm not sure referring to 'rights' is still relevant when what I think these posts are really saying that they think it's morally distasteful to use these sorts of technologies to have a child. I suspect that, like IVF, the initial 'shock' will have subsided in a few years.

I do also feel a great deal of sympathy for people who desperately want children, and while some users might be happy to say that there are many other ways to be fulfilled, and there are, I can see how that would offer no comfort at all to those people.

There are people on this thread who state that they would donate their uterus just not to a trans woman

Reminds me of that Little Britain sketch where the woman finds out the organ she received came from a black person and she vomits it up. I think one thing we can be grateful for is that organ donation is anonymous, or who knows how many racists / sexists / homophobes etc would put conditions on their organs before donating.

It's only a bit of skin, and if it brings new life, then it's a wonderful thing.

That's OK it's not compulsory to do it. I would though.

If you wouldn't donate your uterus because it's not life saving, would you donate your eyes to a blind person?

I hate the idea of any of my organs being taken after I've died but I'll be dead and won't know anyway so have a donor card. I don't feel comfortable about the thought of it at all though.

And to add to the point re uterus donation, the bbc article states that previous women had had miscarriages with donated uteruses, so this isn’t just about being able to transplant an organ and celebrating the miracle of life. How many babies will be lost through all this experimentation?

If we are going to say that the possibility of miscarriages is a reason not to do this, it's the start of a very slippery slope. Should we say that anyone who has miscarried twice should be prevented from trying to conceive because of the risk of more babies being lost?

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.
Thanks for the advice - I'll ignore it thank you. I literally cannot believe someone has written this!!!!

How long before it goes the same way as surrogacy? Rich women buying poor women's bodies. But people will overlook it because ahhh baby.

Oswin that already happens in India. People can buy organs as long as they have the money.

I probably wouldn't donate my uterus. If I get no say over who gets it, (as I'd certainly not donate such a vital organ while still alive), then it would be too much of a risk.

I don't want any of my organs to help a person who's not a good parent have children.
Even if my eggs weren't used, I'd still feel some responsibility to make sure the children born from my uterus are okay. Which, being dead, I couldn't do.

Thank goddess that women who put a child up for adoption get a say over who can adopt the child.

I also shudder to think that some people really think it ethical to waste precious donor organs by transplanting them into people where they have no chance of survival.

If an alcoholic gets a donated liver, they might repent and try their best to stay away from alcohol. The organ has a chance.

If a male gets a donated uterus, that male may have the best intentions in the world, it won't keep the organ alive because the male body just isn't designed to have an uterus.

The male body also comes with testicles, which are the male body's way of producing offspring, and therefore doesn't need an uterus.
If no testicles are present in a male body, the donor organ needed are testicles, not an uterus.

This is all quite independent from the person's gender identity. It is just biological facts that can't be changed by wishful thinking.

I like it I would donate mine x

How long before it goes the same way as surrogacy? Rich women buying poor women's bodies. But people will overlook it because ahhh baby.

I worry about that, too.

I know it is already happening with kidneys and the like, but this is taking things to a whole new level.

OP, it sounds like you might disagree with this on religious grounds? In any case, like a lot of things, if it's not for you then don't do it but others may want to and that's nothing to do with anyone else. Infertility is a special kind of agony and I can understand why people are prepared to go to such lengths.

if it's not for you then don't do it but others may want to and that's nothing to do with anyone else

No, I don't agree,regardless of what a person thinks, we do need to look at a societal level about the ethics of new reproductive technologies that go beyond consent. A narrative of consent alone doesn't give room to talk about paid-for surrogacy, especially when it is based on an economic model that exploits - willing and consenting - women in undeveloped countries.

And, I'm an atheist, for full declaration.

@effinablender I was talking specifically about womb transplants from a deceased donor.

OJSquash because donor conception is Deliberately creating parentless children who are missing a part of their identity. And it’s not the same as a parent whose relationship ends where the other parent decides to cut all ties, this is a deliberate act with no thought to how it might affect the child born of such a conception.

In the case of surrogacy it is literally buying a child in the case of straight surrogacy where the surrogate uses their own eggs, or renting a uterus in the case of host surrogacy. Yes the law states that only costs can apply but let’s be honest here it doesn’t cost upwards of £10k to have a baby. It’s a personal objection and obviously people will still continue to do it, I just don’t agree with it and would never have gone down that route.

And to the PP who states my reasons must be religious, absolutely not as I’m an atheist. I just don’t believe that it’s ethically ok and is not remotely compairable to other organs being donated, but again, there are others who will think differently and who might refuse to donate their organs on that basis which is their prerogative.

But I don’t believe that everyone has a fundamental right to have a child. I wouldn’t go as far as user who stated that the infertile should find other ways to make a difference to society, but equally I do think that sometimes infertility is something which cannot be resolved and when that happens someone who is not able to have children needs to find a way to fulfil their life without them. That’s not a judgement it’s a fact. I also don’t think that everything goes and that just because someone can’t have a baby society should do everything in its power to try for that to happen for them. For me personally that line is drawn at surrogacy and/or messing with nature in terms of e.g. uterus donation and yes, even egg/sperm donation. It’s a personal thing. I can say for absolute fact that had I not been able to have children (and that was a possibility for me at one point) there are roads I wouldn’t have gone down. It’s not all about a woman’s desire to have a baby. That baby is only a baby for the shortest time and there is so much more to consider than just that.

Ok sir but I think the point applies more generally. I think there should be an open conversation about how new reproductive technologies may have unintended consequences more generally and it's not enough just to manoeuvre the debate to just preference and consent.

Society also wants children. The birth rate in developed countries is very low.
These days, fertility is not simply an individual problem.

It makes no difference to the baby whether the womb they grew up in was their mother's or not.
At least with a transplant, it's the mother who gets pregnant and not a random woman.

But, again, if eggs, sperm or embryos are donated, that is a different issue.