Temporary Womb Transplants?

[Linda7NJ]

It makes me angry that boob jobs and Viagra are covered.

They are? Augmentation isn't ... ??? Right?

Reconstructive surgery after mastectomy ...yes....




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blue22]

I don't think I'd be half as angry about the subject, if the pro-life folks were actually stepping up and helping the children already here by providing loving homes or financially helping parents that chose life.

Maybe it's the hypocrisy I'm more annoyed by? I dunno... I'm tired...lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What do pro-lifers have to do with this? (I'm not asking in a condescending way, lol! I just wonder if I haven't missed something in the story.)

 

[T4Tide]

Yes, insurance should only cover things that benefit me. Who cares about the child who needs prosthetic legs? Must not have been meant to walk. Plenty of people can walk. Sidewalks would be crowded if we had more people walking. Who cares about the man receiving a cochlear implant because he just wants to hear his sweet wife's voice? Not my husband. Who cares about the woman whose womb is barren and her souls desire is to carry her own child? I mean, aren't there plenty of children already?

Well, I do. Those situations may not be mine, but it's called compassion, and I am thankful that those people's dreams can come true through modern medicine.....regardless of whether I think their desire is "worthy enough."

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

 

[blue22]

It makes me angry that boob jobs and Viagra are covered.

Cosmetic breast augmentations are not covered. Reconstructive surgeries after mastectomies and cancer are.

As far as viagra, I agree with you. I think insurance should cover medications and procedures necessary to health and reconstruction. Insurance covers way too much elective crap.

 

[blue22]

Yes, insurance should only cover things that benefit me. Who cares about the child who needs prosthetic legs? Must not have been meant to walk. Plenty of people can walk. Sidewalks would be crowded if we had more people walking. Who cares about the man receiving a cochlear implant because he just wants to hear his sweet wife's voice? Not my husband. Who cares about the woman whose womb is barren and her souls desire is to carry her own child? I mean, aren't there plenty of children already?

Well, I do. Those situations may not be mine, but it's called compassion, and I am thankful that those people's dreams can come true through modern medicine.....regardless of whether I think their desire is "worthy enough."

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

.

It seriously has nothing to do with keeping people childless...my goodness! It think the purpose of insurance is to sustain health. I think it should cover medications necessary to the health and survival of people. I would say that ear implants and prosthetic are not elective procedures, but procedures to achieve and maintain health.

Children are a choice, not a necessity to the health of a person. It's just about insurance being what it should be. Healthcare...not achieving our life's dreams. I do think there should be programs for people who can't have children, but I don't think it should be health insurance.

It's just MY opinion, no one needs to agree with me. It takes all kinds!

 

[LinasK]

.

It seriously has nothing to do with keeping people childless...my goodness! It think the purpose of insurance is to sustain health. I think it should cover medications necessary to the health and survival of people. I would say that ear implants and prosthetic are not elective procedures, but procedures to achieve and maintain health.

Children are a choice, not a necessity to the health of a person. It's just about insurance being what it should be. Healthcare...not achieving our life's dreams. I do think there should be programs for people who can't have children, but I don't think it should be health insurance.

It's just MY opinion, no one needs to agree with me. It takes all kinds!

Well as one who experienced infertility because I waited too long to have children, having previously gotten pregnant, I'm glad my private insurance was able to help me out, but it still cost us a lot of money.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yes, insurance should only cover things that benefit me. Who cares about the child who needs prosthetic legs? Must not have been meant to walk. Plenty of people can walk. Sidewalks would be crowded if we had more people walking. Who cares about the man receiving a cochlear implant because he just wants to hear his sweet wife's voice? Not my husband. Who cares about the woman whose womb is barren and her souls desire is to carry her own child? I mean, aren't there plenty of children already?

Well, I do. Those situations may not be mine, but it's called compassion, and I am thankful that those people's dreams can come true through modern medicine.....regardless of whether I think their desire is "worthy enough."

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

I'd really like some lipo... How much can I put ya down for?

Just teasing you.

You made some good points. But IMO they pale in comparison when I look at parentless children bounced around the fostercare system. I'll save my compassion for them. I have a limited supply.

I'm okay with IVF... It's all this womb transplant surgery I'm taking issue with.

I have no problem with the outsourcing for surrogates either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Cosmetic breast augmentations are not covered. Reconstructive surgeries after mastectomies and cancer are.

As far as viagra, I agree with you. I think insurance should cover medications and procedures necessary to health and reconstruction. Insurance covers way too much elective crap.

I agree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[T4Tide]

I guess it's just a little personal. My 5 year old neighbor just had to have a total hysterectomy due to cancer. I just can't help but think that if it was that sweet baby, who desired to have a womb, and modern medicine could make her little Cinderella dream come true. I'd want that for her if that's what she wanted.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

 

[T4Tide]

I'd really like some lipo... How much can I put ya down for?

Just teasing you.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Snipped by me. Maybe we can just do a joint "Go Fund Me" thing together after I have this baby. Haha


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Snipped by me. Maybe we can just do a joint "Go Fund Me" thing together after I have this baby. Haha


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

Sounds like a plan


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Snipped by me. Maybe we can just do a joint "Go Fund Me" thing together after I have this baby. Haha


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

You're pregnant! Congratulations!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[T4Tide]

You're pregnant! Congratulations!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks! We are very excited!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

 

[kincaid]

It's funny the prejudices people have about when women decide to have their children. I had my first baby when I was 17 and complete strangers would lecture me about irresponsible I was, I was too young, I needed to wait, get married, have a good job etc. So waited to have more kids until I was married and financial secure, Only what they don't tell you about waiting is that it's so much harder to conceive when you're 37 then when you're 17.

I think womb transplants are a great step forward. A generation ago, IVF was controversial. Now young girls with cancer can freeze their eggs so later on they can have their own biological child. Technology is always going to be evolving. Moving forward is better than standing still.

 

[jjenny]

It's funny the prejudices people have about when women decide to have their children. I had my first baby when I was 17 and complete strangers would lecture me about irresponsible I was, I was too young, I needed to wait, get married, have a good job etc. So waited to have more kids until I was married and financial secure, Only what they don't tell you about waiting is that it's so much harder to conceive when you're 37 then when you're 17.

I think womb transplants are a great step forward. A generation ago, IVF was controversial. Now young girls with cancer can freeze their eggs so later on they can have their own biological child. Technology is always going to be evolving. Moving forward is better than standing still.

Great step forward? So far this experimental procedure hasn't resulted in any successful outcomes.
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.
It's an invasive surgery with a risk of rejection.
These women will need to take anti-rejection meds for the duration of the pregnancy.
How is that going to affect the developing fetus?

 

[K_Z]

Great step forward? So far this experimental procedure hasn't resulted in any successful outcomes.
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.
It's an invasive surgery with a risk of rejection.
These women will need to take anti-rejection meds for the duration of the pregnancy.
How is that going to affect the developing fetus?

Not to mention the planned cesarean delivery with a gravid hysterectomy immediately. The plan is "one use only" for the transplanted womb-- the plan is for removal following C-section. Gravid hysterectomy is not without serious risks.

Not to mention that the odds are that cesarean delivery will take place prior to "full term" (these would be very high risk pregnancies, with serious risk of preterm delivery, and all the attendant risks for the newborn.) My guess is the women will be on bedrest for a significant portion of their pregnancy, and most likely in hospital for monitoring.

IMO, this is not a miracle technology. It is enormously, breathtakingly expensive, hugely risky for both woman and potential fetus, and in many ways, unethical. IMO, this is in a completely different category than other forms of assisted reproduction, like IVF, etc.

It may sound harsh, but there is nothing at all "wrong" with a woman who does not have a uterus. She is not "disabled" or ill, IMO. In the same way that a 50 year old woman does not have "secondary infertility"-- she is menopausal.

I'm both a birth mom and an adoptive mom. I can't begin to imagine why any woman would go thru the pain, risks, and experience of uterus transplant. It's kind of a warped psychological thing, IMO-- the woman gets to be the center of attention and play the "selfless victim", putting herself thru a painful and risky long term process, purportedly "for the sake of the child". IMO, there is a LOT of secondary gain for the women who participate in this kind of thing. Noble martyrdom.

But IMO, for a lot of women, participating in ART becomes like a full time "hobby". It's all consuming, and they lose perspective about pretty much everyone and everything else in their life. I know that's harsh, but in my experience, it's true.

FWIW, our adoption agency has some pretty strict rules for working with women who have been involved with unsuccessful fertility treatments. Our agency requires a "waiting period" from the last round of fertility treatments, as well as documentation of psychological counseling for the couples, and additional pre-adoption education.

We had 2 fertility treatment couples in our pre-adoption classes, and IMO, the women were no where near emotionally ready to pursue parenting and adoption for the sake of the adopted child. They were still actively mourning their own infertility, and completely focused on their own needs, and this adoption plan was a "last resort". And the husbands were just dragged along because the women wanted babies so badly. Most international adoptions nowadays are kids over age 2, and both these women were unhappy about that, too. I don't think they did any research before signing up for the pre-adoption classes.

 

[nightwatch]

What about the effects of the anti rejection drugs? Could those cause birth defects?

I also could see a line of poor women from India lined up to sell their uterus. I saw a documentary were they were lined up to be surrogates. Jmo

ciao

 

[TrackerSam]

Bottom line is - it's none of our business, these women neither seek nor need our approval. Where's the 'big' raspberry smilie when you need one?

 

[jjenny]

Bottom line is - it's none of our business, these women neither seek nor need our approval. Where's the 'big' raspberry smilie when you need one?

I can express my opinion regardless of whether these women seeked my approval.

 

[K_Z]

Bottom line is - it's none of our business, these women neither seek nor need our approval. Where's the 'big' raspberry smilie when you need one?

I think it's an important public discussion, particularly because the bulk of the expense is not paid for by the participants OR their insurance company. Right now, this is highly experimental, and is funded with tax dollars. And as mostly everyone's health insurance is changing what is covered (and, IMO, we are moving closer to socialized medicine), I think it is a VERY important discussion to have. Is this purely elective? Or medically necessary?

I would be in favor, for example, for each heath care policyholder to be allotted a certain lifetime amount for purely "elective" care. Each person could choose how to spend these one time dollars-- making up the difference out of their own pocket. Some might choose to put their allotment toward a facelift. Others might choose cosmetic breast augmentation. Or a penile implant. Others might choose rhinoplasty or blepharoplasty. Or orthodontics. Others could put their allotment towards assisted reproduction, and choose the procedures that fit their situation and budget. It would be a very fair way to distribute access to elective health care resources, right? Everybody would at least have the same starting amount, right? No one will mind paying more taxes to fund this type of program, right? Because it's fair to everyone, right?

Right now, poor people don't get to choose IVF, or have breast augmentation.

The bigger question is, who should get uterus transplants? The rich? The moderate? The poor? Those who have no children? Those who lose their uterus to trauma or disease, but already have birth children, or adopted children? Only the childless? Anyone who wants one? Who should pay for this?

This kind of "medical therapy", IMO, is in the same category as Jahi McMath's post brain death care. Should anyone whose family wants them to be kept on machines after a diagnosis of brain death be maintained at public expense?

Is reproduction a "right"? Is it a biological privilege? Is PARENTING a right? Or a privilege?

Who should pay for Nadya Sulemon's 14 children, several of whom have serious medical conditions?

Who should pay for a 52 year old woman to undergo fertility treatments to try to become pregnant?

Who should pay for a penile implant for a 60 year old man?

Who should pay millions for a uterus transplant, a pregnancy attempt or 2, the almost certain preterm delivery, the gravid hysterectomy, and the NICU care of the newborn?

Because this therapy (uterus transplant) is completely medically unnecessary, and fulfills a purely emotional want, not a life sustaining or health restoring purpose, it is purely elective, IMO. I believe the risk/ benefit ratio tips the process into the risks outweighing the benefits for BOTH woman and potential fetus.

(More than my :twocents:, I know!)