An Unlimited Supply of Uteruses

[ClingFilmApplications]

.mode {
tinfoilhat: on;
}

Irrespective of people's views on the law change regarding assumed consent for organ taking donation, I can't help but wonder "why now?" - at the time when doctors are now claiming it may soon be possible for transwomen to receive donor uterus implants?

It's an awful thought to be sure - but when this kind of law change happens, it's always worth considering what kind of activities and situations this enables, and what the implications of such scenarios are.

If we see male animals that this is tested on

1000s of laboratory animals must have been tortured in the process of evolving ever more unnatural methods of creating babies. I suppose 1000s more will continue to be tortured.

Valid points, yes - but pregnancy is almost certainly not the initial goal. "Relieving dysphoria" is a more likely rationale to be put forward.

I am currently a registered organ donor but I intend to opt out. I have made it clear to DH that the majority of my organs may be used but that no one has assumed consent over my body. The main sticking point for me are reproductive organs. They aren't currently on the list but may well be added in the future. No one is going to use my reproductive organs, especially a man.

The main sticking point for me are reproductive organs. They aren't currently on the list but may well be added in the future. No one is going to use my reproductive organs

It does come down to the question of imposing consent doesn't It? Under the opt in system there was a recognition that some people might be uncomfortable about certain organs. My line was drawn at reproductive organs- I've heard of other people being uncomfortable at eyes/ corneas. The individual reasons for making such exceptions might well be dismissed as irrational but nevertheless the individual is still entitled to make their own decision.

The system now is all or nothing. People must make their choices clear. I have a letter from the NHS acknowledging I have opted out. I have written on it that the opt out is only in relation to reproductive organs and tissues. It is signed and dated and my husband has a copy.

“doctors are now claiming it may soon be possible for transwomen to receive donor uterus implants.”

There isn’t much you can’t get some “doctor” somewhere to say.

No one who knows the first thing about human biology will be advocating transplanting a uterus where no uterus existed before.

wombtransplantuk.org/uk-research-team

J Richard Smith co-authored this paper:
Uterine transplantation in transgender women

Where the Equality Act is mangled to argue that to refuse a male person a uterus transplant if you would give one to a woman is against the law.

(Nope)

"Our UK womb transplantation research team is led by Mr J. Richard Smith who has an international reputation for the development of fertility sparing surgical procedures. He is a Consultant Gynaecologist at the West London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Queen Charlotte's & Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London."

It's naive to think this is limited to quacks.
Don't underestimate the insane ambition and absence of ethics that drives some competent and powerful surgeons.

It is quackery, yes.
But it is being endorsed by apparently reputable medics.
It's sensible to be concerned about how mainstream such ideas have become.

I’ve opted out. Donating organs to save lives is one thing but I don’t like the idea of “them” just being able to seize everything, including organs to be used for non-essential transplants. It’s easier to opt out and give my family control over what happens. I certainly don’t like the idea of my womb being transplanted into a man.

Having been on the organ donor register for years I opted out at the proposed introduction of "presumed consent".

I remain willing to donate my organs (not reproductive ones) and my kin are informed of my wishes. But those wishes MUST be sought, they cannot be presumed in an absence of explicit permission.

If we move from "we'll ask first and only
take once we have consent" to "we'll take first, and the onus will be on your family members to prevent us if they believe this was against your wishes" then we've set a terrifying precedent in law.

I want our laws to consider consent sacrosanct, whether for organ donation, sexual crimes, medical procedures or any other right that pertains to bodily integrity.

We must protect a system that preserves the right of people to give or withold consent and which proactively seeks this consent, and has proof that consent was freely given and received.

I cannot be part of any change in society that devalues consent and "presumes" it exists. Such precedent WILL be used elsewhere once it is acceptable as a legal principle.

Presumed consent is, by definition, not consent at all.

everyone is entitled to receive organs that will help them in life

Crikey - go tell that to anyone on the waiting list, I dare you!

I’m typing from the kids cancer ward again, so I will take this as an oopportunity to remind people that while medical science is absolutely fucking amazing, the ongoing and late term side effects of life-saving treatments can be brutal, are sometimes fatal, and are almost always life-shortening.

Why not wanting to assist reproduction for someone else- especially stranger? Because I don’t want to have the responsibility of assisting a child being born that i have no knowledge and control of.

What’s to say they won’t harvest your ovaries and either implant them or take ripe eggs for donation? Maybe not now but the rules could change. No thanks.

I think ovaries & eggs are far more likely to be in demand than uteri. Two reasons; surrogacy and embryonic stem cell research.

Barracker's post distinguishing about real consent and presumed consent captures the issue here.

And before anyone makes accusations of transphobia my objection to the use of reproductive organs and tissues has been in place for many years. I don't want to assist any person, man or woman in this particular scenario.

Some one asked why I objected. It is partly as another poster said because I don’t want to have the responsibility of assisting a child being born that I have no knowledge and control of; partly and increasingly because it has led to the commodification of children. We have progressed from "test tube" babies to women being used as walking incubators- what is next? And partly the thought of the, to my mind, needless suffering laboratory animals will have gone through.

I do not consider infertility issues to be anything like heart or renal failure- bluntly you might be very unhappy at not being pregnant but it isn't terminal.

I opted out today. I have personal, deeply held ethical issues with organ donation which govern my personal choices, but I have always thought it a beautiful gift to give, and a very significant symbolic thing to make that gift to someone.

I completely, fundamentally object to the gift element being removed, which presumed consent does, and grave concerns about the change of relationship between the individual and the state that is involved when my body is assumed to be state property when I die.

My uterus is, in this equation, neither here nor there. But I take Lass's point about the topic of reproductive organs and I think I broadly agree.

I absolutely believe that the government will profiteer from body parts once presumed consent is the norm. You will be lucky to get a few leftovers to bury. Which is why I and my family all opt out. Donate chosen organs by all means, give the gift of life. But my body does not belong to the state to harvest whatever the state has a use for.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1506150/Alistair-Cookes-bones-stolen-by-transplant-gang.html

You can choose to donate your:
• Heart/heart valves.
• Kidneys.
• Lungs.
• Pancreas.
• Intestines.
• Liver.
• Skin.
• Corneas.
• Bones/bone marrow.
• Blood vessels.
• Connective tissue.
• Stem cells/peripheral stem cells.
• Umbilical cord blood.

Big business will be circling for all those bits and pieces that are left after the main organs have been removed.

It's a revolting thought that someone could profit from my visceral leftovers.
I would refuse consent for the reuse of any of my reproductive tissues too. They are not for sharing.

It's sensible to be concerned about how mainstream such ideas have become.
This. I'm very concerned.

I wonder if part of the problem is people not upholding basic principles like consent and instead thinking in more of a numbers-driven way. The word "entitled" at the beginning of this thread spoke volumes. A human being, a body, isn't the same as a product or a commodity. I do understand arguments that we should save lives by increase the rate of organ donation, but surely that could be done in different way. Why is the solution to let the state to assume they can freely take a citizen's organs after death, unless said citizen actively opts out?

IMO it's a stretch to think the organ donation law changes are intended to promote uterine implants for males. From a practical perspective, I think it's more likely that males-who-identify-as-women would look at using a uterus sourced from the voluntary hysterectomies females-who-identify-as-men are having, frankly. Females-who-believe-they-are-trans are a fast growing demographic, they're younger, I believe it's actually recommended to have a hysterectomy after 2 years of testosterone, and at this rate I could even see hysterectomies being offered to non-binary-females. I might also hear the hypothesis that one of the reasons womb transplants for females (e.g. female to female) has become a much-discussed procedure right now is because of some male doctors or male patients who want to implant a uterus into a male. Doctors tried it with Einar Wegener/Lili Elbe back in 1931, who died as a result, so it's not exactly a new idea.

(Incidentally, does anyone know how if they've tried to do a penis graft onto a female? Apparently penis transplants for males is a thing! Are there papers speculating on the necessity of penises being removed from males and attached to females-who-identify-as-men? Or does this enthusiasm for cross-sex reproductive organ harvesting and implantation only go one way?)

Now, I don't want to be negative, but I'm at the stage where I basically assume that whatever the male-born TRAs say they really want, they will try to make happen. No matter how ludicrous it sounds, or how against the normal rules of medical ethics it is.

Exhibit A of why I'm a pessimist: the creation of experimental "treatments" for children that result in sterilization/irreversible physical effects, despite worries about the drugs used, no long-term outcome data, and medical studies we do have saying that the clear majority of children-who-are-identified-by-adults-as-trans will desist. The collusion of medics and TRAs in the case of children-diagnosed-as-trans-by-adults-before-the-age-of-consent should be a real warning that usual principles of good practice seem to not apply to gender ideologists.

I am a big supporter of organ donation and support presumed consent.
I don't believe there is a risk or uteruses being harvested for transwomen. Implantation of a uterus is cloud cuckoo land no matter how much they protest otherwise.

I agree with Barracker, I've always been on the donor register but this presumed consent worries me. So if I opted out but told DH/other family members that I did want to donate my organs would that still happen or would HCPs say they could not override my withdrawal of consent?

The organ donation service wouldn't refuse your offered donation, confirmed by your family. I hope. Imagine the public outcry if they were turning away healthy organs offered with explicit consent?

In withdrawing from a presumed consent register one is not refusing one's consent to donate. Not at all.
One is refusing to be part of a particular presumed consent registry; refusing to be compelled into a system which says "we will claim you consented without any evidence. Absence of explicit consent will be read as consent."

I'm still a donor. I'm just not colluding with a principle of presumed consent becoming an acceptable part of law as I believe it to be a bad precedent.

VoiceOfReason

Implantation of a uterus is cloud cuckoo land no matter how much they protest otherwise.

Care to state what parts of the medical white paper on the subject you disagree with?

Authors of paper:

M-Y Thum
Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
Lister Fertility Clinic, The Lister Hospital, London, UK

I Quiroga
The Oxford Transplant Centre, The Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK

J Yasbeck
S Ghaem‐Maghami
BJ Jones
JR Smith

West London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, UK
Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK

P Thomas[[https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorStored=Thomas%2C+P
]]
Brighton Gender Clinic, Nuffield Health Hospital, Brighton, UK

Their conclusion:
"Despite a number of anatomical, hormonal, fertility, and obstetric considerations that require consideration, there is no overwhelming clinical argument against performing UTx as part of GRS. However, the increased radicality associated with the retrieval operation, including a longer vaginal cuff and more extensive ligamentous dissection, potentially necessitates the use of deceased donors."

I have been a registered donor for many years, but will be opting out. I am happy for my bits to be used to save other people, but this government are not dictating what I do with my body.
I will leave strict instructions with my kids about what parts I am happy to donate.
But, there has to be very specific circumstances where body parts can be harvested for donation. So it is very unlikely in the majority of cases that most of us will have organs removed.

I have just looked at the organ donor register for Scotland. Currently opt in system but there are plans to move to an opt out system. I was previously registered for anything but have updated it to only include heart, liver, kidneys, lungs and pancreas. The list also included eyes, small bowel and 'tissue'. Could
tissue cover reproductive tissue? Not comfortable with that at all. Carving up my dead body to save a life I can cope with but a definite no to eggs, ovaries womb etc.