blog.bioethics.net

Women's Bioethics Blog had a post about this back in November - admittedly, a post that I wrote. But it's easier to link to that than retype my various thoughts and concerns here. ;)

- by Kelly on Jan 16, 2007 at 5:31 AM | link

I followed this link from the wonderful Academia as an Extreme Sport blog. (Do you know her? She's in Albany.) I read the article but I'm a bit unclear as to the reasons for the implication made here that a woman who received such a transplant would die not long after the birth.

- by Michael on Jan 16, 2007 at 8:21 PM | link

The woman and the baby are at risk much earlier than "after birth."
Those are big arteries and veins supporting the uterus. They are strained even in the normal pregnancies.
There's also the concerns about placenta previa and ectopic pregnancies, due to the scar tissue.
Women are having a hard time finding a doc to attend when they want to have a vaginal birth after Cesarian (VBAC), (and there's at least moderately good reasoning behind it).
The idea that anyone would encourage a woman to attempt this is astounding.
The woman and the baby are at risk much earlier than "after birth."

- by Beverly Nuckols, MD on Jan 18, 2007 at 11:05 PM | link

I find this story difficult to grasp with all the difficulty that is sometimes involve with main organs being rejected. Thinking of the risks related to this transplant, then during pregnancy, childbirth, and after are unreal. I want a child as much as anyone else, but there are other safer ways.

- by Diane Annarino-Kot on Jan 27, 2007 at 3:48 PM | link

I believe there are women who want a child so bad that would find this as their only answer. When you want a child so bad women will do whatever it takes. I myself would not want to go through such a risky procedure. There are to many things at risk, death is the major one, as well as rejection, and infection. I feel there are other ways to get a child. There are so many children out there who need loving families. If you have that much want for a child then you should be able to love one no matter how you get them.

- by Marybeth on Jan 28, 2007 at 12:27 AM | link

I agree they sound like an incredibly risky procedures - the transplant and the birth itself, especially when there are safer ways. But, I am sure that same was said for any new procedure at it's first conception. There has to be a starting point. If the woman is set on having a child in this manner, is informed of the possible risks as well as the fact that there are several yet-to be determined risks, and there is a complete plan of care for her - inclusive of physicians - for her transplant, pregnancy monitoring, and delivery - I don't see why it shouldn't be done.

- by Holly James, RN on Jan 28, 2007 at 2:36 PM | link

After having had a baby recently I can kind of relate to both sides of this argument. I realize how special it was to actually carry my own son from conception to birth and I feel like I am more attached to him because I shared this special connection with him. But, this procedure is so risky, I don't think I would be comfortable knowing that my life and my child's is at so much risk. There are other safer ways to have a child, but there is always that "connection".

- by Vanessa Nolf on Jan 28, 2007 at 7:00 PM | link

I am a mother of a 10 year old son, I understand the desire to want to raise a child. However this procedure seems too dangerous. How can they be sure that the women would be able to conceive a child and the uterus would be able to withstand the stess of pregnancy and labor. Also, the drug used to prevent organ rejection. How would these drugs effect the child and with the added stress of preganany on the womens body, would the mother's health suffer as well?
when there are so many needy children available for adoption that would benefit from a loving home. To elect to such a dangerous procedure seem too dangerous.

- by Ruby Fultz on Jan 29, 2007 at 3:04 AM | link

There was a man with a very successful job with a lot of benefits such as free tuition for dependants. The only thing, the man did not have any children of his own so all the benefits were not being utilized. So he adopted two children, a boy and a girl, and gave them a better education and better lives. The girl was me. I honestly believe that had my adopted parents been able to have their own children, they would not have “needed” to adopt me, and I would not be here today. Granted I would not have had a horrible life with my biological parents, my life now is far more productive than it would have been. All I’m saying is, everything happens for a reason. This has nothing to do with religion, well, unless you want to make it about religion. But there are plenty of children in the world, even right here in the US, who need parents. People don’t need to put themselves through this much trouble; there are different ways and means to become a parent. As it turned out, I can’t have children of my own either, so someday I will adopt, and I’m content with that.

- by Althea on Jan 29, 2007 at 4:31 PM | link

I have a hard time believing that this could actually carry a baby full term in a transplanted uterus without major health concerns. The meds alone that are used to prevent organ rejection have to be extremely harmful for a fetus and for the woman taking them. I worked a long time in transplant and I've seem first hand what horrible implications a life taking these meds can be like. As for the woman who so desperately wants children...everything happens for a reason and we all are put here with a plan...I believe that wholeheartedly. If I were unable to have children, I'd adopt without a doubt. I do have 3 children and for me this isn't an issue but I understand the trememdous desire to have that bond. What a tough thing to understand.
Dana

- by Dana on Jan 29, 2007 at 5:43 PM | link

This strikes me as very strange. On the surface it would appear to be a very risky, and costly procedure. The one thing I haven't seen is anything related to the cost of this endeavor. Is this being covered by private insurance for infertility - is this paid for in cash? Is this covered by malpractice insurance? Is this research only? Why not use the resources to find cures for the problems that caused the infertility in the first place.

- by rbilan on Jan 30, 2007 at 12:20 AM | link

I feel that someone should not take such a big risk toward their health just to have a child. There are other ways to have a child for example, adoption. There are children all over the world that are looking for good families to raise them. I understand that some women may want the experience of having a baby grow and develop inside of but, the real joy is watching them grow and develop into someone special. I feel that eveything happens for a reason. Maybe someone not being able to have kids is suppost to happen so that the many kids in the world that are "unwanted" will have families that want kids to raise them.

- by Scot Guidash on Jan 30, 2007 at 10:14 PM | link

This stroy is unbelievable to me. I think if you are unable to bear a child in the first place, maybe that is nature's way of saving you. This is such a huge risk when ther are many other options availible for women.

- by Melinda Walk on Feb 2, 2007 at 2:20 PM | link

Risky business. I have 2 children of my own and don't know what it is like to not be able to conceive and have children. I do know that this transplant sounds very risky. As mentioned in previous blog responses the medication alone may cause damage to the fetus. The husband would be left to care for a special needs child, perhaps alone because the mother could die of complications soon after delivery. Is it worth the risk of someones life to have their own child? I suppose if someone really wanted to have a child that badly. On the contrary, adoption sounds like the way to go.

- by Heather G on Feb 6, 2007 at 2:06 AM | link

I tend to believe that like many other organ transplants, it is appropriate to do. Del Priore states “We think we could help many women fulfill this very basic desire.’’ I tend to agree. For many women this natural process of child birth is imperative and they tend to do whatever possible to achieve this. However, with this type of transplant will the fetus and woman be healthy? It doesn’t appear that anyone is quite sure. This transplant may allow couples to produce beautiful healthy children while it could also create mentally, and physically ill children that suffer their entire lives.
Like with all other organ transplants, I think it is something to attempt. Before heart transplants began, many were skeptical of the outcome. Would a kidney really function in another’s body? So now we try the uterus. It could in fact do for women what they truly desire.

- by Adam on Feb 8, 2007 at 11:54 AM | link

Wow , uterine transplant.I work in an area where we do Uterine fibroid embolizations or Uterine artery embolizations vs. hysterectomy. If I did not know this was going on then how do others not in medicine? Have there been enough done? Why risk your life, you won't die from not having your own child. There are ways to adopt etc. Not a death wish while hoping to produce a new life.

- by Diane Cancilla on Feb 9, 2007 at 3:45 PM | link

Uterine transplants would offer much relief to many women (and significant others). However, this seems to be such a risky procedure hat may ultimately end in demise. After thinking about the support structures surrounding the uterus and scar tissue developing. Would the uterus be able to handle a nine month pregnancy? Would the new transplant and use of anti-rejection drugs give rise to birth defects? What would happen if the body rejects the uterus during a pregnancy? That would be tragic for the parents to go through.
Also another important thing would be the cost. With this transplant being entirely elective, this opportunity would be available to only a select few individuals with large bank accounts.

- by T. Przybysz on Feb 22, 2007 at 2:50 PM | link