Baby born after womb transplant

[Wildflowers99]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/health/34329085/womb-transplant-baby-hope/

I’m not really sure how I feel about this.

On one hand it all seems consensual and fine, and nice that they’re all happy.

On the other it seems yet more expansion of surrogacy-type science, making pregnancy/babies a sort of human right that we should go to any lengths to make possible for people. And all the ethical/moral issues around that.

What do you think?

You seem to be able to only see things from a very narrow perspective. If you can't imagine that women maybe feel coerced into "lovingly" putting their health at risk to facilitate someone else hosting a foetus then there's not much point in engaging with you. If you can't see the wider societal issues then it's a shame for you.

You can talk about coercion with a lot of things in life, shouldnt stop things from taking place just because some people might have a bad experience. It's the same with anything.

Not to mention that doesnt apply with organ donation after death.

No it's not. And just because there's already a list of things that women feel coerced into doing with their bodies doesn't mean we need to be constantly adding to that list with new things.

So why didn't the woman in the article use a cadaver womb?

How incredibly offensive to compare cancer to infertility. There is 0 comparison.

But actually if you must, sometimes a patient will develop cancer where there isn’t any more that doctors can do, due to the progression of the illness or the situation of the tumours. And in those cases a doctor will say “I’m sorry. There’s nothing more we can do.”

And sometimes it’s just not possible for a woman to have children. And then the doctors will say “I’m sorry, you won’t be able to have children.” Just because a uterus has been transplanted, doesn’t make that ok or ethical, and it most certainly is a waste of money when that money can and should be being invested in preserving and saving existing lives.

Only having one remaining kidney is pretty risky.

Anyway, the point being made was that this doesn't benefit the donor. Well that can be said for all donation.

Because her sister donate it. Transplant doctors prefer living transplants to cadaver ones. It's something that families talk and make decisions about.

If your child, spouse or a sibling you are very close with, needs an organ you can give and they need, it's a personal decision.

Unless you've dealt with a transplant in your closest family, it's unlikely you'll understand the generosity of giving a womb to a sister so she could be a mother.

So is this an issue then because it involves solely a female organ and operations solely on women? Is that what's making you unhappy with this particular operation?

Ffs because her sister offered!

Ffs because her sister offered!
How do you know that she wasn't asked?
I can't imagine her sister researched it and made the suggestion.

I’ll be honest, I don’t like it. There are so many restrictions on pregnant women, what medication we can take, what we can eat etc. I remember asking my doctor about it when I was pregnant, he said it was because it was unethical to test on pregnant women due to the unknown risk to the baby, so it takes a long time to get things licensed. How on earth are experiments like this ok, we aren’t all entitled to a biological child at any cost.

It isn't a medical health to benefit. You can live and have quality of life without a child. To put a womb transplant on the same level as a liver, bone marrow or heart and lung transplant is madness.

transplanted organs don’t get the genetic issues of the recipient but the baby is not a transplanted organ. Genetically the baby is from the recipient so might genetically inherit the issues the recipient has.

as for the immunosuppressants, the womb is removed after pregnancy due to the issues with the drugs. If there are issues for the recipient, then what are the consequences for the fetus? Anyone know or anyone willing to admit this is basically experimenting on babies?

I agree, this is experimenting on babies.

I agree. There are so many medications that are not even tested on women because of hormonal fluctuations, which could screw up the results so doctors just don’t do it. Let alone testing these on pregnant women because of the risk to the baby.

but when it comes to these kind of transplants, then all of a sudden all bets are off? No, this is not right.

The sister was happy to do it. Stop trying to find a problem when there isnt one

As I have already shown, you were talking about MN being being anti men. If you don't want people talking about negative impressions of men maybe you shouldn't be calling MN anti men. Do you usually expect your statements to remain unchallenged?

Agreed.

It's really not. Most kidney donors have very high life expectancy due to the fact that they had to be incredibly healthy to be considered and they tend to go on to observe an incredibly healthy lifestyle. You have said this several times in this thread and it's not true. Stop making things up to fit your narrative.

I'm still waiting for the person who I was actually speaking to respond. It was a point I was making to her

In what way are babies being experimented on?

Winifredtabago · Today 07:07
This is a certain section of the female population on here. Dont be so naive to think mumsnet represents women as a whole. A lot of hatred on here, a lot of anti men

A point you made about MN users generally. Dare I say stereotyping of MN users as atypical of wider society and 'anti men'.

Their eggs, their sperm, an implanted womb. Given all the ethical issues around egg and sperm donation and surrogacy, honestly this doesn't feel like an issue at all. Just a marvel of science.

I am assuming these wombs that are being transplanted contain babies