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 love the fact that the women on these threads waffling rubbish about buying children are always the ones with children and clearly never had an issue conceiving or being told their infertile. This transplant is bloody amazing and grace and her baby are doing so well. It also wasn’t a live donor or paid for on the nhs so people don’t need to worry unless they specially opt for this organ donation when they die. Can’t wait to see more and more done it’s about time things evolved.

Do you think they are asking people after they are dead?! Some would say this was a bit late.

That is why you have the opt out option. I'd sign up for that now if I were you.

What if your Mom had needed a kidney before she got pregnant with you, or if as a baby you needed an organ transplant?

Just trying to understand your argument - is your concern that the human race loses the ability to reproduce with out assistance?

Would you therefore oppose any infertility treatment?

What a load of rubbish. How could you possibly know the background of each person here?

Jibes like this are exactly what I was talking about. Why the need to be personal?

Did someone say ' manufacture of consent'?

The womb is not on the list of organs a person can agree to donate. In the article it says that permission was sought from the family, after the woman died. She had already agreed to donate other organs.

I took that as them offering helpful advice as you seem worried about it.

I've noticed a few threads, such as this one, seem to have been moved onto this board, and I'm wondering why? Is the 'feminist general chat' thread no longer a thing?

Consent should absolutely be assumed in certain situations. If someone is wheeled into A&E, unconscious and bleeding out, you assume their consent to treatment, for example.

The organ donation point is very simple - if you don't consent, you can opt out. Just like if you don't consent to be resuscitated you can put a DNACPR in place.

That's incorrect.

Eye/cornea transplants for one. Rarely life saving but definetely life changing.

My inability to have children is NOT a disability, What a bizarre thing for you to say..

A reasonable first point, thank you.

So some situations assume consent.

I dont think this de facto broadens out to assumed consent being a 'simple' matter.

I dont think everyone is aware of the need to opt out. If someone is not aware, its not reasonable to assume consent.

You can only speak for yourself. Others may feel differently.

Still not applicable here.

It is well signposted on every hospital notice board. It was very well publicised.

'Hospital noticeboards' are not sufficient to inform a population. If its so important, the NHS could ask everyone for consent directly.

There used to be campaigns and stands, and you filled in your details and carried a card. That was a good system.

What next? Seeking blood donors is too much of a faff? Kidney donors hard to find? Pass a bill, assume consent, problem solved!

It was David Lammy's 'transwoman's cervix' that prompted me to opt out of the organ donor register. I realised that it would only take one ambitious surgeon to decide that a set of female reproductive organs would be just the thing to implant in their male patient who 'feels like a woman' for it to be tried eventually. Functionality wouldn't necessarily be required. Given the horrors the NHS has already happily visited on trans people, and their general attitude to women, I can't see anyone stopping it.

Consent is not a simple matter when it comes to medical ethics.

In many cases, active consent is dismissed in favour of presumed consent where it is considered to be in the best medical interests of the patient, or in this case, patients multiple.

It's a debate that could be had endlessly and never come to a true resolution - is it better to assume consent and save another life or lives, or does the principle of individual consent override all? Which is more ethical?

I don't wish to derail the thread, because we could get into numerous detailed "what if" scenarios, but suffice to say that there is no one "right" answer, we have to have some kind of system (which is always going to be considered unethical by some, regardless of what it is), and presently it seems to be felt that the majority would consent to organ donation and so here we are.

Thank you for directly engaging with my points. I dont see it as a derail, tbh, as the consent issue seems fundamental.

' it seems to be felt that the majority would consent to organ donation'

What is this feeling based on, I wonder?

A womb is not a hip, or a lung or a kidney.

You will live without a womb.
It's hard to live with one not working right.

Endometriosis affects approximately 10% (around 190 million) of women and girls of reproductive age globally.

I think we should concentrate research on to improving their lives.

And if this Womb charity don't currently plan to put them in men, rest assured someone else is planning to do just that.

It will definitely have been the subject of surveys - have a google.

One of the reasons for the opt out was that when asked a much larger % of people saying they want to donate than have registered to do so. This suggests a lot of lost donations due to inertia which is a shame. The argument was that people who feel strongly will opt out people who don't care either way will be happy to donate.