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.

Perhaps the uterus is more likely to be compatible if it is from a blood relative?

MIL was pressured to donate a kidney to her sibling. The pressure came from the sibling's spouse. She said no, but was haunted by that. She was later diagnosed with diabetes and was told her own prognosis would have been worse if she had only one kidney.

The adage hard cases make bad laws suggests that society needs to be able to discuss the pros and cons of these sorts of issue. Of course no-one should be rude or judgemental towards women who are living through this experience but a discussion forum is not the same as a support forum.

See that's exactly the insensitive, rude discourse we're talking about.

No one is spending their life savings at a fertility clinic and going through gruelling treatment because they want "a mini me" 🙄

We're feeling emptiness and longing. We're not stupid. And no, getting a dog or horse didn't fill the void or serve as a "suitable alternative".

Wow.

Ethics and alternatives are rude.

Thats quite the take.

I stand by my original points.

The poster might have been offended by your post but it was in no objective sense rude.

Sure, it is a very expensive fix. However I'm sure that IVF went through a very expensive phase with R&D, trials etc before much success. I also don't know how much money has actually been put in from the government/NHS for womb transplantation research and so I'm not entirely sure that 'we' did spend a lot of money on it; a friend of a friend of a friend was going to be one of the first in the UK to recieve a womb transplant (it didn't happen and she's gone on to adopt) but it was all self funded, she and her partner, wider friends and family fundraised god knows how much towards the research team undertaking the procedure. Ofc I'm sure there was some level of govt/health system funding, but I'm not sure of the figures.

I'm sure the reasons for doing it are multifaceted, including that of continuous scientific development in all areas. And it may nothing to do with what I said, that may not be a factor in their reasoning for working on this.

Whether I agree with it or not, I'm sure it will have its uses and perhaps the technology developed can have further reaching uses.

"Wow" again? You really need to work on widening your vocabulary.

I found it quite hilarious that you pounced on me earlier, deliberately misconstrued my words in some weird attempt to start some kind of argument or climb up onto some high horse and play the offended against what you claim someone was saying, then when challenged for proof that I had said what you were claiming I'd said, radio silence ensued. "Wow, just wow" 😂

Taito, your view on this debate is really valuable. However, you can't assume that every other woman in the same situation has the same motivations and feelings as you.

Okay.

I'm sorry you have a problem with my vocabulary. It's not usually a problem people have with me. I'm usually accused of quiet the opposite.

Now if youd had a problem with my spelling and typos, I think you'd maybe have had a point.

You crack on there.

Wow. Just wow.

Yes, it's is both insensitive and rude to suggest that infertile women only want a"mini me" and that alternatives suffice.

I hope you never tell anyone infertile woman in real life to get a dog or "just adopt". That's another favourite of people who think an alternative will suffice. Problem solved if you just fill the ago with something else eh?

🙄

Quite the hot take there! I stand by my points too.

Have the day you deserve.

You know the takeaway I get from this in real time is that if people want something badly enough enough, then ethics become a nuisance and something that should be discarded because they want something. They cease to care about others and the impact it might have because they can't see further than their demand.

And that's scary. It's implications are terrifying.

And it only shows me just how important and just how necessary conversations about ethics are.

What's more the reaction to having these conversations reveals the huge levels of the depths of disregard go and how angry people get when the word no is even considered. We've seen this pattern before and it's not a good one.

Just seen this in the Scotland section of the Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/d7ff237e-a8f9-4973-b1e9-133b9f929fb5?shareToken=c76b05b913e298e1f084314872b7d450

Lol. Okay.

If you want something desperately but there is absolutely no chance of it happening the best way forward is acceptance, tough as that is. It must be phenomenally tougher to have the possibility of what you want dangled before you, tantalising you.

There is such dissonance and obfuscation around all this. The experts in this article you have posted seem to be contradictory in many ways.

““We have a lot of supporting structures in a female pelvis — where are you going to hook a uterus when we stitch one in a male pelvis?”

“I have seen this raised false expectation but my own belief is that this is 10 to 20 years away at least,” Smith added. “There may be somebody who wants to be a renegade, and be a real hero but that’s not our scene at all in any way.”

What does this mean? They are 10-20 years away from what? Trialling implants into male people?

This person doesn’t say ‘pregnancy is not an option with these male people because they lack the coding to grow a human inside them’. Why not? Is it because this person is thinking it is ok to grow a human using only exogenous hormones and supplements?

So, the information is not clear. And we still see this activism as in the video clip below

https://x.com/womenreadwomen/status/1910260228538638499?s=46

However, if could also be said to be a contradiction saying “So that’s why we are not proposing to transplant anybody just so they feel … a sense of being complete or complete psychologically”.

There is a lot to think about in what you say.

It's not your vocabulary that I have a problem with, it's how you use it to talk down to people. I assume the difference in this case and in real life is that you don't go around speaking to people in such a condescending manner face-to-face, with your wows and wow just wows. I doubt you'd have the courage to. It is possible to speak to folk in a respectful manner you know, (which most on this thread have done to one another); hiding behind a keyboard doesn't mean that basic respect needs to go out the window.

But you crack on with your attitude.

So Prof. Smith is not saying implantation of a uterus in a transwoman is impossible or won't ever happen.

"..my own belief is that this is 10 to 20 years away at least"
So in 10 to 20 years it might happen.

"..the research is nowhere near ready to support trans women — those born male but who identify as women."
So at some point the research might be ready.

"We are not currently doing any work in this area because we’ve got far too much to do.”
Not currently. What of the future?

And what of other medics?
"There may be somebody who wants to be a renegade..."

So Prof. Smith regards such procedures as a possibility. Time to discuss the ethics, then, before they get any nearer.

Tbh, if I've given attitude (it's genuine shock btw) it's because I'm so utterly horrified at dismissal of ethics as a standard protocol by people so determined to get what they want and to hell with the rest of the world.

This was my take too.

And if the ethics of those implants aren’t raising red flags and the contradiction isn’t causing dissonance in his mind with that, then I think that expert has a problem recognising ethics. Perhaps he sees it as ‘what the people will accept right now’ rather than ‘is it ethical to do this at all’.

And I did not find that article focused on the child. Only on resolving distress in an adult.

I thought the article was a good indication of the focus of this issue.

Well I've never said anything like that in this thread, so you jumped on the wrong person with your attitude lady.

This, it’s abhorrent.

Thanks @Igneococcus for the Times link.
Two quotes from Professor Smith stood out for me.
'I have seen this raised false expectation but my own belief is that this is 10 to 20 years away at least,” Smith added. “There may be somebody who wants to be a renegade, and be a real hero but that’s not our scene at all in any way.'

And

'In the future, Smith believes it will be possible for women to use donor eggs but for research purposes “this was another variable that the ethics people did not want to see thrown into the pot'

'and be a real hero'
'the ethics people'

I know I'm reading a lot here into a small number of words but I thought they were quite revealing.

Two separate issues though. The rudeness and condescension of this poster towards others (who haven't actually said anything like she's misrepresenting) and the issue of ethics surrounding this debate.