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

There were also lots of people who'd accept a donor organ who didn't have donor cards.

It was also to make it easier to have the conversation with families for Doctors.

There is actually very few people who are able to donate. Basically you need to be on lifesupport free of cancer and infection. So essentially its people who have had accidents that are able to donate.

Yeah but people need lung and kidney transplants bc otherwise they'll die. A woman won't die if she doesn't give birth to a child it is purely a wish fulfillment thing, like plastic surgery. There are many children in need of good homes throughout the world why put all this effort, expense, and energy into a non life-saving procedure when there are so many alternatives for people to start a family?

Because most would consent to an organ transplant if needed. You can't have one without the other.

No one ever "needs" a womb transplant. That's the difference.

Ah the old "Don't have fertility treatment adopt!" trope 🙄

Funny how no one ever admonishes fertile women for wanting their own children when there are so many just waiting to adopt isn't it? No one ever berates pregnant women for making more kids when there are so many unloved ones do they!?

If a family had a long list of genetic issues that meant their child would have a very hard life or never be able to procreate and they deliberately set about creating such a child for their own sense of "wellbeing" I certainly would judge them.

What alternatives in this situation?

I think she's talking about live donations and using surrogacy as an analogy in particular how female relatives are often pressured into being a surrogate or how poor women from foreign countries are forced into surrogacy and some even kidnapped and used as forced surrogates. Egg donation is a good analogy especially if you look at the women who are trafficked and held prisoners for their eggs or how the Scottish government targeted 18 year old girls with Facebook adverts to have their eggs harvested with no thought of the potential risks to them including the loss of their own fertility.
The risk of the exploitation of poor women and family members with live donation is huge. As for donation after death that would need to be a specific ticket box of yes you can take my womb or a you can take my heart, lungs etc but not my womb. As things currently stand with presumed consent they can and do take anything they want including your womb and right now you cant specify not my womb unless you completely opt out of donating any organs.

🙄If you're going to act that willfully obtuse you're seriously not even worth debating with.

I'm confused by your response.

I think it has already been explained on this thread that adoption and fostering are not 'alternatives', and most regular posters are aware of the reasons for this.

We can argue until the cows come home about whether this is, in itself, a good or a bad thing.

Until it has been done a good many times, and there is a body of evidence, we won't know for certain what the medical and psychological implications are or aren't.

One thing we do know is that now this has been done, it won't be going away. And like every other medical or technological advance that ever was (since human nature is what it is), somebody, somewhere in the world, will abuse it. If there's money to be made, or a power trip to be had from it, attempts at abuse are likely to be widespread.

The other thing we know, unfortunately, is that where women are concerned, the people with the power who are supposed to consult women about things that affect them, and look after their interests, won't necessarily do so. In some cases they may actively oppose them.

So the more open discussion there is, the more awareness of how it could be misused and of the measures that will be needed to prevent abuse, the better.

I suspect the surgeons know they are creating a continuous group of infertile women that they can make money from by continuing the genetic issues in this way. They'll be bleeding these families and their unfortunate kids dry for £££ until one of them stops the cycle.

Have you looked at the "safeguards" around surrogacy in the UK and the way the pro crowd are trying to remove the few woefully inadequate safeguards that exist and bring in commercial surrogacy.
The amount of pressure put on sisters and female cousins to be surrogates is immense along with all the guilt piled on them if they say no. Now imagine the pressure put on women to give up their womb because they have finished having their own dc so dont need a womb anymore so should just hand it over with no thought of the potential harm to her and her longterm health

Has this been answered?
I'm intrigued.
Sorry if I've missed it. Please just point me the right way.

Or they could perhaps use ivf gene test embryos before implanting as happens with a number of other genetic conditions if the parents are aware of the risk of handing them on.

The fact they didn't here suggests it is unlikely for some reason. Money most obviously.

Other types of organ donation can be given by anyone.

Only young women and girls can donate wombs. Which makes me incredibly uncomfortable as I know how quickly and easily young women/ girls can be thought of as commodities to be bought and sold.

What are you on about?

Having MKRH syndrome is hardly "a long list of genetic issues".

There are lots of conditions that's would require a hysterectomy, many of them not hereditary. They are women who are healthy post treatment who have healthy children if given a womb to carry them with.

My point that you don't berate pregnant women for having their own instead of adoption stands.

When 'option in' was the default next of kin could still override your choice. Now 'opt out' is the default consent from the next of kin is still the ultimate deciding factor so now, as then, the most important thing is to ensure that your next of kin know what your wishes are be that yes to any/everything, no to any/everything or yes to X and Y but no to anything else.

Where are you getting the idea gene selection wasn't used? The couple went through IVF, which would make this possible. The ins and outs of their IVF treatment are not in the article and don't need to be.

There was never a public vote on this so you don't actually know that's what the majority thought of think.

I think it is hugely relevant!
If couples with life limiting DNA are encouraged to have womb implants to create kids for their own mental health rather than considering the child they create and their life/standard of life we are in a lot of trouble, let alone the potential costs to the state increasing.

How do you know they didn't? The article mentions fertility treatment but doesn't give any details of what that entailed.

It does a little but the more obvious answer would be for the son to have IVF to ensure he only produces male babies.

Why would a womb implant stop genetic material from being passed on?