Turkey: world's first uterus recipient gives birth

[Lamahaha]

www.aa.com.tr/en/health/turkey-worlds-first-uterus-recipient-gives-birth/1891233?fbclid=IwAR1vN0VdKB2fBRC3dIGJhRuHqRb5nvfK-Qqkq0DazlQpXkCnAnxt3EDsnP4

After the birth the uterus was removed so that she would not have to continue taking medication. However, the medication couldn't have been healthy for the baby, a boy.

This still doesn't mean than men can give birth. It's not just the uterus, it's the whole system.

There have been previous live births after transplant - generally in women with MRKH syndrome, so women with their own working ovaries - I think the above story refers to a women who had quite a gap between the transplant surgery and the pregnancy? So the first transplant but not the first birth?

Here’s a previous birth story:
www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31766-5/fulltext

V different to trying to retrofit a uterus into a male body, I agree!

I think there is a significant body of evidence re: anti rejection drugs on developing foetuses due to pregnancy in women who have survived other solid organ transplants - no brain energy to look that up today though.

It says she was 'given' the uterus in 2011 and she's 23 now, so when she was 14, but that it was removed after she had given birth.

All seems very strange. If it had to be removed I suspect there were other issues than that she just didn't 'need' it anymore.

Was it just the uterus she had implanted? Does she have ovaries? Was it her own egg? Was a foetus implanted or was the fertilisation in utero? Was it (I suspect caesarian) vaginal or surgical birth?

So many questions.

Bit of brief research shows it wasn't the first birth from a uterus implant. And it doesn't say whether she was born female without a uterus or born male.

Very suspect ethically transplanting a uterus into a 14 yr old born male.

To date, approximately 50 have been performed around the world, resulting in 16 live births. With the start of the UNTIL (Uterus Transplantation for Uterine Factor Infertility) trial in late 2017, Penn Medicine has brought this option to the East Coast … and is opening the door for further advances.29 Apr 2019

And it doesn't say whether she was born female without a uterus or born male.

If she'd been born male there would be no baby. It's a transplant, not magic.

@IAintentDead

Bit of brief research shows it wasn't the first birth from a uterus implant. And it doesn't say whether she was born female without a uterus or born male.

Very suspect ethically transplanting a uterus into a 14 yr old born male.

What an odd ridiculous comment. If she had been "born male" this would have been so revolutionary it would have made international news and transactivists would have never let us forget. The article says "woman", not "man". Clear enough.

Off topic: I just noticed the "OP's posts: see all" link at the bottom of my comment. Is this a new thing, or has it always been there and I've been blind all along?

The article says "woman", not "man". Clear enough.

If only we could trust reports to mean woman when they say woman.

In this case the context made it clear enough. Men cannot give bear babies. The word "woman" is not yet obsolete.

Why would they do this? Just because they can doesn’t mean the should.

It didn’t save her life - but as I typed this I realised : £££££££££.

If she were the first to have a transplanted uterus, in 2011, age 14, then I am horrified!

How can a 14 year old child be deemed to be adequately competent to agree to an experimental procedure, especially one that is not in anyway, shape or form, life saving?

I hope there are inaccuracies in this article!

The filter by OP is apparently a new feature, there's a pinned post in active convos. Can't see it on the app though.

@DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong

If she were the first to have a transplanted uterus, in 2011, age 14, then I am horrified!

How can a 14 year old child be deemed to be adequately competent to agree to an experimental procedure, especially one that is not in anyway, shape or form, life saving?

I hope there are inaccuracies in this article!

Yep. I hadn't calculated the dates when I first posted the article. That would indeed be horrendous.

@DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong

If she were the first to have a transplanted uterus, in 2011, age 14, then I am horrified!

How can a 14 year old child be deemed to be adequately competent to agree to an experimental procedure, especially one that is not in anyway, shape or form, life saving?

I hope there are inaccuracies in this article!

The article is full of inaccuracies.

Derya was 21 in August 2011 when she received her uterus from a donor. She was born without a uterus, although she did have ovaries.

I believe she was the first successful uterus transplant but not the first successful pregnancy.

There was attempted an IVF pregnancy in 2013, but unfortunately it had to be terminated after there was no heartbeat.

It is lovely to hear that she finally give birth to a child though.

Here is some more articles I have found about her story.

abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/04/15/woman-pregnant-after-uterus-transplant

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2324950/Woman-22-underwent-worlds-successful-womb-transplant-loses-IVF-baby.html

www.trtworld.com/life/the-world-s-first-successful-uterus-implant-recipient-gives-birth-37735

Phew!

Yes, congratulations are definitely in order for Derya on the birth of her baby boy.

Regardless of how any of us feel re: the moral questions around reproductive technology, the birth of a healthy and desperately wanted baby is still a happy occasion.

Most transplants have a finite ‘life’. Apparently it is generally quoted as a half-life (how long until half fail). For kidneys from a dead donor it is 9 years, 12 or so for a heart, lungs 7 years.

You will also be immunocompromised by the anti-rejection drugs which can themselves cause cancer and kidney failure. This means any infection could be very serious. This patient presumably won’t be the first pregnant patient to take these drugs as others might have taken them for other transplants (eg kidney) and become pregnant.

And then there is this:

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/transgender-woman-should-allowed-womb-22270768?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&fbclid=IwAR35lRdfsxVNa6hmU0OLxDLODJUdwD-HsfXaDrFZlwOqvHYDi90JIiBGRnE

Transgender women 'should be allowed womb transplants so they can have own babies'
Surgeon Christopher Inglefield says a successful uterus implant into a trans-female is now achievable after success in fertility medicine in Brazil

I love (not) the way he speaks of "trans-female" - a step forward from transwoman. As if a sex change has actually taken place.

Regardless of how any of us feel re: the moral questions around reproductive technology, the birth of a healthy and desperately wanted baby is still a happy occasion

I know this is a controversial viewpoint- but I disagree. Nobody has the right to be a parent, and at what cost is science pursuing the final result of these desperately wanted babies ?

If we push the narrative that it’s ok to keep pushing the boundaries of science and ethics in the name of giving people babies - where does it end ?

Reproductive rights should never ever compromise women’s health or mental health, but I don’t think we should be encouraging keep trying at all costs. There has to be a line.

at what cost is science pursuing the final result of these desperately wanted babies?

Are they desperately wanted? They babies themselves hardly seem to be considered.

I really think GC women need to let go of this fixation about whether or not men (however they identify) can carry a pregnancy. It is highly likely that, within the next 10 years, it will happen. People who say it's impossible seriously underestimate the sophistication of transplant medicine. The hormones of pregnancy can be given artificially.

I am not saying it is good, I am not saying it is ethical, I am saying it (probably) will happen. By trying to argue that it won't, and that this proves that women are different from TW, we are setting ourselves a trap. The minute that a TW carries a pregnancy, that will be thrown back in our faces as 'proof' that TWAW.

The truth is that artificially maintaining a pregnancy in a male body proves nothing. Scientists have grown human ears on the back of mice: that doesn't mean that mice have human ears. If a few highly privileged men carry pregnancies, that will change fuck all about the biological status of women, but it could seriously undermine GC feminism, if we are not careful, as well as all sex-based maternity rights. We need to argue not that it is impossible for a male body to carry a pregnancy, but that it is unethical from the child's point of view and irrelevant as regards women's rights.

I know this is a controversial viewpoint- but I disagree. Nobody has the right to be a parent, and at what cost is science pursuing the final result of these desperately wanted babies ?

I’m not saying it’s ok to pursue it, only that as this dubious process has happened with or without my approval, that this particular mother and this particular baby have made it through safely is good thing.

I’m not entirely sure how I feel about uterus transplants for women with working ovaries - better than surrogacy (but I’d like surrogacy to be illegal so that’s not saying much).

@MrsNoah2020

I really think GC women need to let go of this fixation about whether or not men (however they identify) can carry a pregnancy. It is highly likely that, within the next 10 years, it will happen. People who say it's impossible seriously underestimate the sophistication of transplant medicine. The hormones of pregnancy can be given artificially.

I am not saying it is good, I am not saying it is ethical, I am saying it (probably) will happen. By trying to argue that it won't, and that this proves that women are different from TW, we are setting ourselves a trap. The minute that a TW carries a pregnancy, that will be thrown back in our faces as 'proof' that TWAW.

The truth is that artificially maintaining a pregnancy in a male body proves nothing. Scientists have grown human ears on the back of mice: that doesn't mean that mice have human ears. If a few highly privileged men carry pregnancies, that will change fuck all about the biological status of women, but it could seriously undermine GC feminism, if we are not careful, as well as all sex-based maternity rights. We need to argue not that it is impossible for a male body to carry a pregnancy, but that it is unethical from the child's point of view and irrelevant as regards women's rights.

I agree very strongly with this. We must focus on the damage that will be done to the baby by the huge amount of hormones/drugs that would be needed.

Yeah I agree mrs Noah. It misses the point.

For this case personally I think it’s a wonderful success. I don’t have any of the worries surrogacy brings me as even if trans women can do the same it makes no difference.

I think it's lovely that a woman can help another woman like that. My infertility isn't caused by womb issues, but I empathise with women who have that problem.

I DON'T think it's morally acceptable to try to transplant a uterus into a male, that's not putting the rights of the child first, but please don't do a knee-jerk reaction to this and campaign against uterus transplants.

Infertility is the most awful thing I've ever experienced, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

An ethics paper on whether uterus transplants should be paid for by the NHS...

"Thus, publicly funded healthcare systems such as the UK's National Health Service (NHS) will eventually have to decide whether UTx should be funded. With this in mind, we seek to provide an answer to the question of whether there exist any compelling reasons for the state not to fund UTx."

jme.bmj.com/content/42/9/559