News Uterus Transplant/Dead Donor-World's 1st Baby

[shyvas]

Brazilian doctors are reporting the world's first baby born to a woman who received a uterus transplanted from a deceased donor.
The case, published in The Lancet medical journal, involved connecting veins from the donor uterus with the recipient's veins, as well as linking arteries, ligaments and vaginal canals.

Healthy baby born to woman following uterus transplant from deceased donor | CBC News

 

[GingerFoxx]

I will emphasize that what I am about to say would probably be classified by many as an "unpopular opinion". I am very liberal when it comes to social matters, but I am personally morally opposed to things like fertility treatments and uterine transplants as methods to allow conception. I think of the millions of children, orphaned, with no one permanent to call mum or dad and how so many people who look into alternate conception methods turn their noses up at the suggestion of adoption. It just seems wasteful and selfish to me to say a living, breathing, healthy, parent-less child is not good enough because it didn't come out of you and is not genetically yours. Then they turn around and spend tens of thousands of dollars on treatments to have their own, sometimes resulting in children with birth defects because *gasp* their body was trying to tell them something by not allowing a successful natural pregnancy in the first place.

Just my two cents. Again... I recognize other's opinions will differ on this. I don't aim to be inflammatory, just to offer one view in light of all the medical "advancement"

 

[Second Summer]

I'm simultaneously amazed and a bit concerned to see what medical science is capable of achieving. When I saw the title of this thread, I actually thought it was going to say it was about a baby born to someone who was formerly male!

As for adoption, here's an unpopular opinion for you: It's expensive, you'll have to fulfill a number of criteria, the process can take a very long time, and, let's face it, the genes and the health/lifestyle of the birth mother have a direct and significant impact on what kind of baby you'll get. Also, if it's an older baby/child, they may have been psychologically and/or physically damaged in some way by their background.

Of course, orphans deserve good parents and a safe upbringing as much as other children, regardless of any 'issues' they may have, but adoption isn't for everyone.

 

[GingerFoxx]

I'm simultaneously amazed and a bit concerned to see what medical science is capable of achieving. When I saw the title of this thread, I actually thought it was going to say it was about a baby born to someone who was formerly male!

As for adoption, here's an unpopular opinion for you: It's expensive, you'll have to fulfill a number of criteria, the process can take a very long time, and, let's face it, the genes and the health/lifestyle of the birth mother have a direct and significant impact on what kind of baby you'll get. Also, if it's an older baby/child, they may have been psychologically and/or physically damaged in some way by their background.

Of course, orphans deserve good parents and a safe upbringing as much as other children, regardless of any 'issues' they may have, but adoption isn't for everyone.

I agree with your view that it's not for everyone and that children up for adoption are not all "flawless" and are often the result of unhealthy parents/pregnancies. There is certainly an elevated risk too in having a medically assisted biological child when your body struggles to conceive naturally too.

I like to think that if we as a society were less taboo about adoption and encouraged more people to adopt or at least consider it along with other options, maybe fewer children would reach teen-age before finding loving, stable homes, giving them a better shot at being well-rounded contributing members of society by the time they reach adulthood.

No matter whether you are a willing parent with no risk factors who conceives naturally, or a would-be parent who requires outside intervention to conceive, or an unwilling parent who surrenders their child for adoption, there is ALWAYS a chance your child could have unintended/unanticipated issues. I think part of being responsible is considering the risk factors and choosing the path most likely to bring healthy children into loving homes.

 

[Mischief]

I've always struggled with the idea that, in order for a child to be "your" child, s/he has to share your genetic material. My father (who was my stepfather) certainly didn't have that prejudice.

 

[Katrina]

Here's another unpopular opinion: I think that tubal ligations and vasectomies should be more accessible so that people who don't want kids don't have them. That way, there will be far less children in need of adoption.

Also . . . I think there are certain situations where it should be legal to force birth control on someone... like if someone is clearly a drug addict, it should be possible to "chip" them with a device that temporarily sterilizes them. Then, if they want a kid, they'll have to get clean and prove it in order to have the chip removed. That probably goes against human rights somehow, but I don't think people should have the right to get pregnant while hopped up on heroin.

 

[Katrina]

As for my opinion on the article posted . . . I find it horrifying that other people have had uterus transplants from living donors. Why would someone donate their uterus while they're still alive? It's not like we have two of them like we do with kidneys.

 

[Mischief]

As for my opinion on the article posted . . . I find it horrifying that other people have had uterus transplants from living donors. Why would someone donate their uterus while they're still alive? It's not like we have two of them like we do with kidneys.

Well, if you don't want to bear children, you really don't need to keep your uterus. Mine hasn't served a function for me any more than my appendix has.

 

[Mischief]

Here's another unpopular opinion: I think that tubal ligations and vasectomies should be more accessible so that people who don't want kids don't have them. That way, there will be far less children in need of adoption.

Also . . . I think there are certain situations where it should be legal to force birth control on someone... like if someone is clearly a drug addict, it should be possible to "chip" them with a device that temporarily sterilizes them. Then, if they want a kid, they'll have to get clean and prove it in order to have the chip removed. That probably goes against human rights somehow, but I don't think people should have the right to get pregnant while hopped up on heroin.

In a more perfect world, people would be sterile and would only become fertile once they've reached a threshold if emotional and psychological maturity and stability.

 

[shyvas]

The very first womb transplant was performed in 2014, which resulted in a healthy baby being born to a woman born without a uterus. This is a very expensive procedure costing between 150 000 - 500 000 $.


There has been huge medical progress for people who have fertility issues and wish to have a child.

I have six examples in my own family and they are all different, with only 2 that have resulting in having biological children.

One couple (UK) had a successful (first) in vitro pregnancy which resulted in having twins.
One couple (US) underwent fertility treatment which was unsuccessful. They failed to adopt due to horrendous red tape and no children were available in accordance with their criteria.
Another woman (US) who was single mum and aged +50 had underwent hormonal treatment and had a fertilised donor's egg implanted into her womb. She gave birth to a baby girl which biologically was not her child. It was her 4 th pregnancy.
One couple (UK) who underwent fertile treatment which was unsuccessful. They failed to adopt.
One couple (US) No fertility treatment available ( 1960 's) who successfully adopted 2 babies. It was far easier during that decade due to less contraception availability and huge numbers of babies up for adoption and less red tape.
One couple (US) who successfully adopted a baby for the same reasons as above.

If medical science is making huge progress in this field, it's because people still want to have their own biological children for multiple reasons.

I know that many others would also like to adopt children but for many reasons, are unsuccessful.
I also believe that a mum or dad is the one that brings up the child. Why are there still many unwanted babies being born despite various forms of contraception being available is also a major problem ?

I also think that people which huge mental problems and also who are drug addicts should have compulsory contraception. It is most unfair to bring a child into this world under these conditions.

In an ideal world, there would not be so many unwanted babies. Moreover, everyone should have the right to have or not to have a child; biological or adopted.

 

[Katrina]

Well, if you don't want to bear children, you really don't need to keep your uterus. Mine hasn't served a function for me any more than my appendix has.

My understanding is that having the uterus removed triggers menopause automatically, no matter how old you are. Or maybe that's something else I'm thinking of.

ETA: Ah, menopause only happens if the hysterectomy also includes removal of the ovaries. I only ever met one person who went through that, and she was quite distraught about it.

 

[shyvas]

You are right, the removal of the womb does not lead to menopause.

 

[Hog]

My mom was a very pro-life Catholic before she died. When my wife and I got engaged, I started asking Mom questions about moral issues surrounding conception and pregnancy. I just needed her opinionated opinion about doing the right things. She said, "You and your fiancee are adults. I can not tell you what to do because you are not a little kid. It is between you, your wife, and doctor."

I finally came to the following position. As a husband, abortion is not my choice. I have to let my wife decide. My conservative priest supported my opinion. My wife later had a miscarriage. She felt like murder. I believed that a miscarriage in the third month is no big deal. An older lady later had to explain to me why it was a big deal for my wife.

By the same token, I have no right to contemplate whether a uterus transplant is appropriate or not. Transplanting the baby might have been a right to life issue for the family.

 

[Katrina]

Well, if you don't want to bear children, you really don't need to keep your uterus. Mine hasn't served a function for me any more than my appendix has.

True. I guess the real issue for me is that I'm scared of surgery. If someone wants to donate their uterus, more power to them.

 

[FredVegrox]

If the donor was dead, it is not an issue about losing a uterus. And it seemed to me that fallopian tubes, and the ovaries, would come with a uterus being implanted. But what do I know about that? I am glad still the baby, who would have perished, was saved. And any getting an implanted uterus with a baby should want the baby, and I think one getting that would.

 

[HappyRoxy]

I will emphasize that what I am about to say would probably be classified by many as an "unpopular opinion". I am very liberal when it comes to social matters, but I am personally morally opposed to things like fertility treatments and uterine transplants as methods to allow conception. I think of the millions of children, orphaned, with no one permanent to call mum or dad and how so many people who look into alternate conception methods turn their noses up at the suggestion of adoption. It just seems wasteful and selfish to me to say a living, breathing, healthy, parent-less child is not good enough because it didn't come out of you and is not genetically yours. Then they turn around and spend tens of thousands of dollars on treatments to have their own, sometimes resulting in children with birth defects because *gasp* their body was trying to tell them something by not allowing a successful natural pregnancy in the first place.

Just my two cents. Again... I recognize other's opinions will differ on this. I don't aim to be inflammatory, just to offer one view in light of all the medical "advancement"

I agree with your two cents.