Baby born from dead donor womb transplant in UK first

[IwantToRetire]

Commisseration and support for the family of the woman who died, and happy for the new mother.

But feel sort of uneasy about this.

https://news.sky.com/story/simply-a-miracle-baby-boy-born-from-dead-donor-womb-transplant-in-uk-first-13511093

I think it's a good thing, and the Frankenstein type concerns are no more than fear a baby will have trauma from being conceived by IVF and briefly in a test tube. I'd be happy for a women without one to have my womb after I died, I have had infertile friends and the impulse that I wished I could do something to help.

However, I'm already very medicalised, I've had lots of lifesaving surgeries and take strong medication. So this doesn't feel as big a step as it might for a healthy person for whom everything goes to plan. My medication and pregnancy were managed, medically, nobody suggested I should have a baby at all.

The only downside I can see is that I think endless options can prevent acceptance. I'm not sure we, as a population of women, are happier since IVF. Some individually are, but some have taken a financial hit and spent years holding on to a sliver of hope rather than moving on. If this became something else for desperate people to pin their hopes on,I can see a lot of people wasting their 30s and 40s. Hopefully it will only be for people with no other option rather than added to the infertility pathway.

I’m ok with this. It isn’t like surrogacy.

Anyone who would take or let their children take a donor organ should accept this. It isn’t Frankenstein esk or squeamish any more than a lung transplant.

For the donor and their family how good to know that they have given the most precious gift and the recipient and their family are very fortunate.

No.

But the law is such that in this instance, if you don’t opt out, your consent is assumed.

Now that's something I hadn't thought about.

Mmmm not sure how I feel about that. The gene must be passed down somehow, it didn't come from no where.
Where did the mother get it from?
Is it one of those genes thats pretty rare and you need to inherit 2 dodgy ones to actually inherit the condition?

More questions than answers!

Consent should never be assumed.

It is when it comes to donating. The debates about the ethics of this were debated at the time. As the overwhelming majority of us would want a donated organ if we needed one, it was decided that actively opting out would benefit the majority.

Who debated it? When and where?

'It was decided'.

Nobody can consent on behalf of others.

Males can carry it, so although it won't affect this male baby he would potentially pass it on to his children and any female would also presumably have to have a womb transplant?

When the law changed from only being able to donate with a card to all being able to donate unless they have an opt out card.

"It was decided when it was changed'.

Evidently.

By who knows whom.

Reflecting on this point, I do think it is quite selfish. I can't imagine deciding to pass down a genetic fault that could render children and grandchildren infertile through my own choice.

Maybe they are imagining womb transplants will be commonplace in the future but imagine if the NHS isn't around and your grandkids can't afford the same treatments? It feels shortsighted.

Well it's a law, so was debated in parliament.

It’s okay that you don’t know the law, but this was well publicised.

Exactly - not hard to google either https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/uk-laws/organ-donation-law-in-england/timeline-for-max-and-keiras-law/

You could say that about any genetic condition.

Should women who have a higher risk of developing breast cancer not have children?

It's wrong. The law should never have been changed.

The majority disagreed.

Bit different if it literally causes the end of a genetic lineage though. As I say if she has a daughter and they can't have kids or her son has girls who have no womb, how can she know how it will affect them?

It shouldnt be assumed everyone knows about the law, but more importantly, it shouldnt be assumed that people consent to organ and tissue donation.

The other very important point is that consent should be respected. There should be absolutrly no shaming or coercion in the choice of whether to donate body parts.

Its a personal choice which should be freely made based on informed consent.

Without making judgement either way, I would argue that a condition that literally renders the person unable to reproduce, is a little different to a condition that will kill a person at some point after reproducing.

Majority of parliament.

Many people with distressing genetic conditions decide to adopt or not have children because they understand they have a chance to stop the trauma being passed down. It feels very shortsighted as I said.

We can expect the assisted dying Bill to have a similar level of assumed consent and assumptions about the 'majority view' being right and good and proper.

Where is the shame or coercion when you are dead?

Also, the uterus is just small organ - the size of a pear - which gradually expands as the foetus grows. At full term some of the discomfort a woman can feel is due to the baby in the uterus -squashing and restricting capacity and size of nearby organs - putting pressure on the bladder, for example, or on the stomach.