Womb Transplants

[JumpingPumpkin]

Just heard the news on R4 of a successful pregnancy from a womb transplant in this country. Paid for by a charity “womb transplant U.K.”. Finished the report with a question as to the ethics and “it gives women an alternative to surrogacy or adoption”.

This just seems unethical to me.

”It's the women who don't know that fear that sit in their ivory towers judging us for needing help after long term studies have shown these treatments are safe”.

I would really love to see the links to those long term studies. I am still searching. And I find it seems to generally be saying ‘we need long term studies’. So where are the long term studies that you have found that have indicated that the children born from this procedure have no negative long term health and development issues. Or any studies showing children born with the same drugs for anti-rejection that are used for these surgeries have no negative long term health issues?

Most of what I have read indicate that the minimum is the higher risks associated with premature babies being born at the very least. I don’t believe that is insignificant when considering the future of the child. Do you? Why?

What do you believe red is misrepresenting please?

I find it rude to dismiss ethics and frame things as 'being insensitive' to the 'needs' of infertile women as being uncaring and tone deaf.

I simply think it is a want and a desire that is twisted into being a need and I find that unpalatable and yes actually manipulative.

Neither does this mean that I don't have sympathy nor have my own experiences.

I think the biggest issue I have is this normalised idea that it's ok to do absolutely anything for a child and it normal for women to do anything to have a baby. It's this idea that women don't have a line at which, if it didn't happen they would stop and deal with it. It's the erasure of the line and the whole concept that this is normal for women to experience this that's off. It is unhelpful on many many levels - both to women who do have children and to women who don't have children (by choice or otherwise).

It reduces women to crazed beasts driven by hormones or women so desperate to fit in with society and this role they believe they have an absolute right to.

Life really isn't like this and it's absolutely a first world driven phenomena that's been fueled by consumerism.

We can not have everything we want in life. Life is unfair. Yet this as an issue, doesn't seem to be considered in this way. It's the demand culture that's truly depressing and disturbing.

Again, none of this is even close to anything I said. But you continue to double down, even now thst you've realised that you barked up the wrong tree..... It says a lot about you.

My opinion. If you look back at my initial comment, you'll be able to see for yourself. What she asserts I said and what I actually said are miles apart

I think this is grossly hyperbolic. Women who would perhaps go further than you would on their quest to have a child are not making women appear like crazed people who would do anything at any cost.

Would I steal a baby from a maternity ward? No. Would I exploit a surrogate from a third world country? No. Would I use a known and willing egg donor? Possibly. Am I ok with lesbian couples using known and willing sperm donation? Yes. Everyone has a line, other women’s lines might be different from mine but we all have them, and to refer to women who have different ethical lines to you as women who will do anything for a baby is both inaccurate and offensive.

Couldn't have put this any better myself.

There is a whole world between "Just accept it and find an alternative" whilst acting like it's abnormal for infertile women to be desperate to have children and "Crazed beasts driven by hormones who have no ethical lines and will stops at nothing."

It absolutely is offensive the way @RedToothBrush is painting infertile women.

And quite frankly, unless you would just give your kids away, replace them with "and alternative" and just accept that with no problem and happily continue your life with no family with a smile on your face, you do not have any right to judge us for our feelings. At all.

We have all said that ethics needs to be discussed, but that they need to be discussed sensitively and respectfully. Yet you continue with your "mini me" and "Crazed beasts" offensive hyperbole. Your attitude stinks.

So, that is a no to any of that supposed evidence of long term studies that has been said to support this?

If you cannot support claims that this is procedure that is safe to the child, please stop making false claims. Please stop spreading misinformation.

Surgeons behind landmark womb transplant rule out operation for trans patients | Daily Mail Online

I’ve tried to look for information on the outcomes of the children born via womb transplant. Despite there being 50 reported cases I’ve only found 3 cases whiched were followed up so far (none from Sweden) and that was only to age. All the coverage seems very carefully worded in the past tense eg“developed normally” to birth (ie physically typical) and the studies to 3. But based on my DS I just don’t think that’s a particularly useful age range. It was after that when neuro developmental issues became more and more obvious. It’s the same for things like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. I know it’s going to be super sensitive to do proper follow ups but I find this really odd that there’s no info on the first cases from 10 years ago. The technology may be fabulous to help those who are willing and able to take it up, but if it meant having a neurodivergent child I think prospective parents should at least understand what that choice entails. It’s not an easy road and our children are frequently very unhappy through adolescence with high rates of self harm/taking their own life. I’m sorry to be blunt or upset anyone. I’m just sharing our experience which has been tough.

I also have tried to look for the information Knotty and there is no long term reviews that I could find.

Despite it being said on this very thread that there was long term evidence that those drugs were safe for the foetus with no negative impacts for them later in life.

For a start, this seemed to defy all logic that these pregnancies seem to be all delivered as early as possible. Meaning those infants were prematurely delivered. Meaning they automatically carry all the higher risks that a prematurely delivered infant carries.

And yes, as you said. Those that I have found have been only to a certain age.

Re: the effect of anti-rejection drugs on a developing foetus - are there studies on the babies born to women taking these after other transplants - kidneys, for example?

Let’s see what those posting declarations that there is long term evidence proving safety to the children involved link us up with.

Most of the info around transplant and anti-rejection drugs online states that some are unsafe during pregnancy and some are fine. My friend who has epilepsy was in the same position and had to change to a pregnancy safe drug before TTC. I’d assume women who have had organ transplants would do the same, so the only significant risk would be in an unplanned pregnancy.

Prematurity also seems to be a concern but I can’t find much info on why. The first ever successful birth in Sweden was a 32-week preemie but it was caused by pre-eclampsia which can happen without a transplant obviously. One woman in the US who I follow online got to somewhere between 36-37 weeks first time and is aiming for 36 this time - I’ve always understood 37 weeks to be within the range that is considered a term birth. Two women in Germany also both had a 36 week delivery. There isn’t enough info either linking the transplant process to prematurity or stating conclusively that it doesn’t lead to prematurity, for me. More information is needed overall really.

Prematurity also seems to be a concern but I can’t find much info on why.

For general transplants maybe. For uterine transplants the reason is explicitly stated. It's not a case of "it tends to happen for some reason'; babies are deliberately delivered early to avoid putting too much strain on the transplanted organ.

And the risks of prematurity are well documented.

I posted this on the other thread about this, but I think it’s equally relevant here:

”I think there are some double standards at work. Many children are brought into the world in what some might consider less than ‘ideal’ circumstances. Use of donor gametes, single mothers, parents with mental health challenges, precarious living arrangements, those with genetically inherited health conditions, those who decide to proceed with a pregnancy after the foetus has been identified as having a condition such as Downs - in any of these cases, parents may decide to have a child knowing that it is likely to suffer a disadvantage of some kind. That is an intensely personal choice.

Just because in this case the route to having a child involves a new technology, people seem to be holding the woman to much higher standards in saying that it was selfish of her to do it when there could possibly be adverse health consequences for her baby.”

I see. No, I am not holding that woman to higher standards.

I question the ethics of procedures that enable high risk pregnancies without considering the implications on the child.

I also noticed you blended together situations which don’t reflect the deliberate action of creating a child with situations where a mother has sought specifically to create a child.

Isn’t any planned pregnancy a situation where a woman has sought deliberately and specifically to create a child?

Do you think a planned pregnancy where a child is expected to be born at term and healthy is comparable with a deliberate procedure with the inevitable result of a premature birth with its known risk factors?

So if you have existing risk factors for premature birth in a natural pregnancy should you not try to conceive? Or if you have recurrent miscarriage? A predisposition to gestational diabetes? Where is the line?

Its not about holding the individual woman to a higher standard - its about holding reproductive technology, society and ethics to a standard.
We know there are many suboptimal situations for conception, birth and childrearing and do our best to mitigate them or as a society intervene if the risks seem too great (weighed with the rights of the individuals concerned)- but just because some situations arise that are suboptimal, doesnt mean that its fine to openly choose/promote suboptimal situations.

A good analogy would be the way surrogacy is often compared to adoption - eg in adoption you are taking the child away from its mother/parents so doing the same, removing a child from the birth mother after surrogacy is therefore equivalent and just as acceptable.
But there is a big difference practically and morally between picking the least-worst option for an existing child/pregnancy with the needs of that child as a focus, to deliberately creating the situation of removal of the child from its birth mother (and genetic heritage if pregnancy is through using donor eggs) by planning a surrogate pregnancy where the choices made are focused on the wishes of the commissioning adults, not the child created or the women instrumentalised to do so.

In surrogacy many of the most controvertial cases are about the selfishness of the individuals concerned eg very old comissioners who are unlikely to survive or be physically well and in a fit state to meet the childs needs through their youth, comissioners choosing multiples for expense/desirability reasons, thus increasing the chances of high risk pregnancy, low birthweight, prematurity, the insistance on using donor eggs to break any genetic connection with the birth mother exposing her and the baby to a higher risk pregnancy. Theres always a balance and a trade off to be made, and we need to question is that worth it, and where does the balance fall?

All these topics need to be talked about and ethical decisions made/lines drawn - and it may be upsetting to some, and disappoint others but we do no one any service by allowing uncontrolled technology to satisfy any human desire.
Look at how ultrasound technology and sex selection has been used in India where son preference and use of sex selective abortion has endangered the health of many women (whether it was chosen or coerced) and skewed sex demographics in these countries such that there are social and population problems from the imbalance.

The issues around this procedure is not simply about premature births.