Temporary Womb Transplants?

[TrackerSam]

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

Never said you couldn't. :facepalm:

 

[nightwatch]

KZ your post are always informative and thought provoking. As a tax payer I could go on a rant about subsidising the examples listed. Sulemon's litter of kids and womb transplants make for good Frankenstein experiments were is the benefit to the population collectively? Just does not make sense for tax payer money to be involved in this sort of thing. I'd rather repair some of those falliing down infrastructures. Jmo


ciao

 

[K_Z]

Temporary Womb Transplants? - Page 2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

One issue is the use of live donors–the source of uteri in both the Saudi and Swedish trials; only in the Turkish trial was a cadaveric donor utilized. The use of living donors is not unprecedented as they are commonly used in renal transplantation, but here the context is different. In the case of uterine transplantation, the risks of donation would be incurred for the purpose of enhancing a life, not saving one. To date, donors have been family members, but family members are particularly vulnerable to demands of other members. Are there means in place of protecting them from manipulation or coercion? If family donors are not available or willing, issues of compensation would quickly arise, engendering all of the concerns about exploitation that are currently raised among egg donors. Hence, the UK will only consider the use of cadaveric donors; the US has not yet weighed in on the issue.

Those involved admit that it will be too expensive to be affordable for the average family.

If a Massachusetts judge has determined that a male inmate, imprisoned for life without chance of parole for committing murder, is entitled to sex reassignment surgery at tax payer expense–also a “life-enhancing” procedure–how could we justify denying uterine transplantation? As stewards of medical resources and health care dollars, it is incumbent upon us to use them wisely and responsibly.

Comments from Wash Post article from 2007-- which was a front page lead in article. I was in Washington that day, and this was the first time I had heard of the research into this process/ procedure. Some sources quote the transplant ALONE (first procedure) at $500,000. Couple those costs with postop monitoring, the IVF procedure, the pregnancy monitoring costs (including complications like almost certain bedrest needed in hospital at some point in pregnancy-- risk of prolapse, weight of the uterus on surgically connected suspension ligaments, etc), the delivery costs (cesarean plus gravid hysterectomy), plus NICU care for the baby, and you easily reach millions of dollars. And if the pregnancy fails, the fetus dies-- even more costs and risk to the woman.

Several sources I've read speak about the potential babies being very small for gestational age due to the unnatural blood supply to the new uterus, or not developing properly. This has happened in at least one case, where the fetus died in the first trimester.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011401091.html

The operation marks a confluence of two medical specialties -- transplant surgery and reproductive medicine -- that frequently spark controversy.

"It is the convergence of two fields that are already embedded in large ethical disputes," said Lori B. Andrews, a bioethicist at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. "This represents the worst of both worlds."

It's a Brave New World. Why not decanting jars?!

http://topialexia.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/decanting-brave-new-world/

Brave New World - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jjenny]

Even more costs if the fetus develops abnormally but actually survives.
Then we are talking life time costs of support.
So it's a very expensive and risky procedure for both the woman and the potential fetus. And if the uterus is removed from live donor, then their are health risks for that donor as well.
While safer and cheaper alternatives already exist for a woman who can produce her own eggs but doesn't have an uterus, such as surrogacy.
So my question is why this is being done?

 

[kincaid]

Even more costs if the fetus develops abnormally but actually survives.
Then we are talking life time costs of support.
So it's a very expensive and risky procedure for both the woman and the potential fetus. And if the uterus is removed from live donor, then their are health risks for that donor as well.
While safer and cheaper alternatives already exist for a woman who can produce her own eggs but doesn't have an uterus, such as surrogacy.
So my question is why this is being done?

There is no guarantee a surrogate won't do something that could affect the baby in utero ie smoking, drinking, drugs, etc. Plus there have been controversies when fetal abnormalities have occured and the surrogate disagrees with the intended parents. Surrogates do have their drawbacks and not all states have laws that respect the rights of the intended parents.

Sure this is expensive now but research is always expensive and difficult. Once the procedure is perfected, the costs and risks will be reduced. What is learned could be applied to other transplants.

A lot of people's reproductive decisions cost tax payers money. Drug addicts can have baby after baby born addicted to drugs and brain damaged for life from in utero drug/alcohol exposure but it's politically incorrect to say someone like that shouldn't have kids. If science can help women have a healthy biological child, that will help society IMO. Isn't a falling birthrate a bad thing?

 

[jjenny]

There is no guarantee a surrogate won't do something that could affect the baby in utero ie smoking, drinking, drugs, etc. Plus there have been controversies when fetal abnormalities have occured and the surrogate disagrees with the intended parents. Surrogates do have their drawbacks and not all states have laws that respect the rights of the intended parents.

Sure this is expensive now but research is always expensive and difficult. Once the procedure is perfected, the costs and risks will be reduced. What is learned could be applied to other transplants.

A lot of people's reproductive decisions cost tax payers money. Drug addicts can have baby after baby born addicted to drugs and brain damaged for life from in utero drug/alcohol exposure but it's politically incorrect to say someone like that shouldn't have kids. If science can help women have a healthy biological child, that will help society IMO. Isn't a falling birthrate a bad thing?

How is it going to help society? World is overpopulated as it is. As for procedure being "perfected" we are experimenting on humans here. How many fetuses will die before procedure will be perfected?
And never mind there is no guarantee procedure can be perfected.

 

[kincaid]

How is it going to help society? World is overpopulated as it is. As for procedure being "perfected" we are experimenting on humans here. How many fetuses will die before procedure will be perfected?
And never mind there is no guarantee procedure can be perfected.

The world might be overpopulated but without more younger Americans, who's going to be paying into social security? There are article after article saying how the falling birthrate in the US and other Western countries spells economic doom. It's the reason the US needs more immigration. Germany and other European countries are doing everything they can to encourage couples to have more kids. Their economy depends on it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/03/the-us-economys-big-baby-problem/284237/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-real-reason-behind-social-securitys-problems/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/21/germany-birthrate-low-falling

 

[K_Z]

A lot of people's reproductive decisions cost tax payers money. Drug addicts can have baby after baby born addicted to drugs and brain damaged for life from in utero drug/alcohol exposure but it's politically incorrect to say someone like that shouldn't have kids. If science can help women have a healthy biological child, that will help society IMO. Isn't a falling birthrate a bad thing?

Respectfully snipped, and BBM.

First, uterus transplants will not affect the birthrate in industrialized nations. Because of the extreme costs and other ethical difficulties, this "therapy" is unlikely to become widespread, ever. The UK, for example, (linked above) has decided to prohibit living donor transplants, and only allows cadaveric donors.

"If science can help women have a healthy biological child, that will help society."

It's the opinion of many experts greater than me that uterus transplants has a very dim prospect of producing more "normal" babies than "compromised" babies. What that means is a net "loss" for society as a whole, as more resources are used disproportionately-- and possibly for a child who may not be able to contribute to the tax base. Healthy children are FAR from assured at this point in time-- heck, they can't even reliably produce sheep using uterus transplants, which were the first experimental large animal models.

"Isn't a falling birth rate a bad thing?"

Well, a lot depends on which part of the world that statement is applied to. In a country like India, Haiti, or Bangladesh, a falling birth rate would be a tremendous advantage to the overall state of poverty.

In a country like Germany (currently with a falling birth rate), the relatively homogenous nature of the population demographics means that the falling birth rate is ultimately "worse" for the tax base that supports the population. So, in that small country (the size of Wisconsin), a falling birth rate is of concern to the continuing high level of functioning of the government and the population.

In other large countries with a large range of socioeconomic status, such as the U. S., a falling birth rate has to be viewed within the socioeconomic strata that might be experiencing the falling birth rate. Teen births, for example, overall, are decreasing in the U.S. (Census data.) Most everyone would agree that is a good thing, as teen moms and their children largely have many challenges and obstacles, and typically use more resources than they contribute.

Similarly, the demographics of the economic population experiencing the birth rate drop have to be considered. As in Germany, if the birth rate drops among a population who historically provides a large portion of the tax base (a wealthier group), the entire country is worse off economically, with fewer contributors. If a population that typically has a higher birth rate, and uses more tax resources (a poorer group), drops their rate of birth, the falling birth rate would be "better" for society as a whole.

At any rate, uterus transplants at this point in time, use far more resources than they have the potential to contribute. For sick people, vulnerable people, and disabled people, it is recognized that we need to care for them and use whatever resources we can to support them. But the people who will get uterus transplants are neither sick, vulnerable, nor disabled. They are healthy people that we are intentionally putting into a sick role, IMO, as well as the children we hope to "create" with this therapy. I have some ethical concerns about that.

If we can't do this reliably and safely with sheep and other primates, why is it such a good idea to experiment on humans? How in the world did we bypass all of those ethical research boundaries? SMH.

(Because of its commercial potential, probably!)

 

[kincaid]

When the world’s first test-tube baby made her debut 35 years ago, the event seized headlines. Since then, in-vitro fertilization, or IVF, has become so common that researchers now estimate that some 5 million babies have followed Louise Brown’s much-heralded delivery.

What’s more, half of those babies have arrived in the past six years as stigma surrounding infertility has lessened and technology has improved, according to first-ever research presented Monday in Boston at the meeting of the International Federation of Fertility Societies and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

“IVF has become sort of mainstream,” says Dr. David Adamson, a reproductive endocrinologist in San Jose and Palo Alto, Calif.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-...ugh-ivf-past-35-years-researchers-f8C11390532

IVF was controversial when it started. I remember people freaking out about all the 'test tube' babies'. Certain people still view IVF as controversial, a waste of money and women who cannot conceive on their own should be forced to adopt or just accept being childless.

Womb transplants are controversial now, there may be a lot of failures, but it's possible that in 35 years, womb transplants will be just as common as IVF. Researchers follow the money, and childless couples will pay good money to conceive a child. It's not going to change and it won't just be the US and Europe either, there are fertility clinics in Los Angeles that deal exclusively with clients coming over from Asia.

 

[michmi]

People who talk about all these children in need of homes haven't tried to adopt. The days of easily being able to adopt a healthy newborn are long gone. Not every person has the ability to adopt the kind of children needing homes from the foster care system now.

If you want a child bad enough, you'll take something other than a "healthy newborn" then.

God knows I'm going to be flamed until the end of time, but nature is nature and when you're transplanting wombs or trying to be pregnant in your late 40s - hang it up and accept reality.

In nature, some can bear offspring and some cannot. That's just the way it is. If you can't then you can adopt a child who needs a home (no need to leave the country--plenty right here) or you can do something as an occupation where you are around children.

And no, I have none and couldn't have any--and someone must have known something because if I had any children, I couldn't have taken care of my mother 24/7 for 3 years or put the time I needed into managing her care when she was placed in the nursing home. I have managed to have a meaningful life despite not having any kids.

 

[LinasK]

If you want a child bad enough, you'll take something other than a "healthy newborn" then.

God knows I'm going to be flamed until the end of time, but nature is nature and when you're transplanting wombs or trying to be pregnant in your late 40s - hang it up and accept reality.

In nature, some can bear offspring and some cannot. That's just the way it is. If you can't then you can adopt a child who needs a home (no need to leave the country--plenty right here) or you can do something as an occupation where you are around children.

And no, I have none and couldn't have any--and someone must have known something because if I had any children, I couldn't have taken care of my mother 24/7 for 3 years or put the time I needed into managing her care when she was placed in the nursing home. I have managed to have a meaningful life despite not having any kids.

Um, no, I wasn't in my late 40's, I was in my late 30's. I was fertile in my early 20's but didn't want to have a child while I was still in college and not married. It would have screwed up my future. Plus I wasn't in love with the guys I was dating. When I did decided to have a child, I lost 3 pregnancies. There have been significant medical advances which did allow me to have my own child. And most of you have never experienced the emotional pain of being told you can't conceive. If we couldn't have done IVF or it didn't succeed, I would have considered a surrogate first, then adoption, but having your own DNA is preferable, and shouldn't be denied the chance!!!

 

[michmi]

^^^I didn't say YOU waited until you were in your 40s, I was speaking about all these women out there who keep trying to have kids at that age.

Also, I take a dim view of the health insurance policies that pay for any fertility treatment. A child is a "want" and not a "need". You will survive if you don't have one.

The same "significant" medical advances that allow you to bear a child are in a list along with the advances that let us keep a body going long after the mind has left it. Just because it can be done doesn't necessarily mean it should be.

 

[Sonya610]

When it comes to women's rights look at hte bright side, if they can implant wombs in WOMEN then they can do something similar in MEN when embryo transfer is developed.

Actually a fetus doesn't need a womb to develop, and men could probably carry to full term now.

But regardless when men can transfer the little embryo into THEIR body the that will be the END of the abortion debate! Or at least men complaining about it. If they don't like it they can just carry the little embryos themselves.

 

[MsFacetious]

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.

I had my girls at 18 and 19.
I decided to do the responsible thing and wait several years to have more.

It doesn't appear I will get that chance now.
I'm not even 30 but appear to have lost my fertility.

I can't do IVF, financially it just isn't reasonable for MY family to spend that much.

I won't judge someone for how they decide to have a child. :twocents:

 

[al66pine]

BBM & snipped for focus:

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. ....

Who are ^^^they^^^?

 

[LinasK]

BBM & snipped for focus:


Who are ^^^they^^^?

Doctors for one. I've had to go to Reproduction Specialists for infertility when I was coldly told I couldn't have any children by regular doctors.

 

[TrackerSam]

Says you? You're a trained doctor and know this? Oh that's right, it's your opinion spoken as fact. :facepalm:
This is about 'giving birth' more than about having children. You can adopt children.
Someday a transgendered male might want to give birth.
IMO if you have the need and the money, no worries.

 

[killarney rose]

Um, no, I wasn't in my late 40's, I was in my late 30's. I was fertile in my early 20's but didn't want to have a child while I was still in college and not married. It would have screwed up my future. Plus I wasn't in love with the guys I was dating. When I did decided to have a child, I lost 3 pregnancies. There have been significant medical advances which did allow me to have my own child. And most of you have never experienced the emotional pain of being told you can't conceive. If we couldn't have done IVF or it didn't succeed, I would have considered a surrogate first, then adoption, but having your own DNA is preferable, and shouldn't be denied the chance!!!

I saw first hand what my own DIL went through to have a child. She suffered from fibroids that caused her to bleed to the point of hemmorraging. She had to have blood transfusions it was so bad. She went through several treatments that werent successful, finally having the fibroids surgically removed.i saw the heartbreak she went through when my other kids got pregnant and had babies so easily, while she and my son struggled with infertility. Each procedure she went through carried the risk of a hysterectomy and ending the chance of a baby for them. I considered but never told, offering to be a surrogate...I hurt so bad for them. Finally after years, she conceived and had a perfectly normal pregnancy , but had to have a c-section because there was danger of uterine rupture from the surgeries.

I think this could become a viable option for someone struggling with infertility. I wouldn't judge at all!

 

[michmi]

Says you? You're a trained doctor and know this? Oh that's right, it's your opinion spoken as fact. :facepalm:
This is about 'giving birth' more than about having children. You can adopt children.
Someday a transgendered male might want to give birth.
IMO if you have the need and the money, no worries.

Bizarre post and obviously you haven't read the whole thread.