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

Exactly
Women will become commodities, even more than they are today.
Its like surrogacy on speed

Hmmm... but long term?

Just had a quick google - it says risk low... I forgot to consider the fact that children have been born to mothers taking immunosuppressants for other medical conditions.

No. However, lots of women have medical intervention to allow them to have children, whether that's drugs that manage pre-exisiting conditions to make a pregnancy lower risk, or indeed IVF. You seem to be saying some people can use modern medicine to 'have what they want' but not women who need a womb transplant; that seems totally inconsistent with the basis upon which most modern medicine is administered. Like, my mum's hip replacement.

No it’s not.

someone dies and agrees to donate their organs. Their womb is harvested as are there other organs. It is then implanted into a woman who desperately wants a child. How is that surrogacy?

What’s that got to do with the price of fish?

what about the poster who needed a kidney before pregnancy? Do you have opposition to that?

I need surgery on my knee. Do I just accept that I need to live in pain, as opposed to getting it healed?

Living donor not great as probably open to exploitation.

certainly better than surrogacy

But I do feel a little unease as many of these scientific breakthroughs always seem centred on the science and not the resulting child. I wonder how far it will go?

I’m happy for the couple.

I’m marginally concerned that genetically, we may be creating more infertility and thus more need for such interventions.

I don’t believe this offers any significant change to the potential for womb transplants into men.

Its open to abuse of women, especially in poorer communities.

I appreciate that organ donation in general carries risk of abuse. Someone could be coerced into donating a kidney, for example, but we still permit it with safeguards in place. I don't think this is any different.

Do you genuinely, actually believe that they’re going to kill women for their wombs?

They could be coerced into donating kidneys too, but we allow kidney transplants from live donors with safeguards.

Well no, because hips don’t grow children do they? But, you know it’s not the same thing don’t you, it’s just a last grasp effort to make a point about a subject that you know nothing about!

I presume you can donate your womb and still live so it would be a concern about coercion.

Yes but there are safeguards.

I know - I am not arguing that point, I was just saying that I don't think murdering was the issue the PP had in mind.

I think the difference there is that people of both sexes can donate kidneys, and I feel that because of that, the checks and balances in place are more rigorous than the ones usually applied when it's only women's rights at stake.

This is a good conversation. It's absolutely right that the ethics and feelings about this are explored - particularly at a time when women's rights have been commodified for the benefit of certain men.

I'm not sure how I feel about this - suspect it's on a par with the immense feelings on knowing that the heart of your deceased loved one is beating in another person's body.

What matters is that this is open to scrutiny and that the despicable charlatans embedded in the NHS and healthcare (alongside all the ethical medics) don't get anywhere near this.

Is this grounded in reality?

Well surely the risk is the same for kidneys, liver, lungs etc. Should we stop all organ transplantation on that basis?

I genuinely believe women are trafficked and abused and sold on a daily basis.
When there is a lot of money to be made nothing seems to be off the table.
If recent events should have taught us anything its that women are comodities to be traded for money and influence - why not their body parts?

What do you think I know nothing about exactly?
Hip replacements? My Mum had 1 and both knees too
A womb is very different from most other organs and joints.

It’s the slippery slope fallacy in practice

I think it’s great. Why not? If I died i quite like the idea of part of me staying and helping bring new life into the world. Those saying why can’t we just accept some women can’t have children… you could apply that to anything. Why don’t we accept some people (even children) die of cancer, why can’t we accept some people die of liver failure etc… why would we, if there is a cure? Modern Medicine is amazing.

Yeah, that’s my point, you know about hip replacements! So, nothing about infertility or womb transplants. You’ve jumped on yabbering sarcastically about making a child from a hip replacement and offered absolutely nothing.

A womb is an organ, same as any other. You can’t even argue about ethics surrounding the gametes used because they are the organ recipients own.

So, what is it that you dislike, specifically, about the transplant of an empty uterus, versus a cornea for example?

My concern is for women and children being bought and sold.