Mother to donate her womb to her daughter

Chinafoot

Saw this on the news this evening and I thought it was fascinating.

Link.

Guardian Newspaper wrote:

A woman in Nottingham has agreed to donate her womb to her infertile daughter if doctors gain permission to attempt the groundbreaking transplant operation.

Eva Ottosson, 56, the director of a lighting company, said she would offer her uterus to her 25-year-old daughter, Sara, who cannot have children because of a serious birth defect that left her without a womb.

If the operation goes ahead – at a hospital in Sweden – Sara could conceive and carry a child in the same womb she herself was born from, but serious technical hurdles must be cleared if the procedure is to succeed.The operation is experimental and still at a premature stage in animal studies. Only a handful of mice have been born from transplanted wombs and little work has been done in larger animals, such as pigs, rabbits and monkeys.

The deeply complex nature of the operation carries serious risks for the donor and recipient, leading some doctors to claim the procedure is not ready to be performed in humans. "As a mother you have all these questions: have you thought it through; do you know what you are doing; how do you feel about having the same womb that you have been developed in yourself," Eva Ottosson told the BBC.

"Of course it's major surgery and has its risks, but I trust them, I know they know what they're doing. I'm more concerned about my daughter and what the impact will be for her," she added.

Sara Ottosson, a biology teacher who lives and works in Stockholm, has a rare condition called Mayer Rokitansky Küster Hauser (MRKH) syndrome, also known as Müllerian agenesis, in which the reproductive system begins to grow but never fully develops. Women with the disorder are typically born without a womb and fallopian tubes, and have vaginal malformations.

Little is known about the cause of the condition, but like many of the one in 5,000 people born with the disorder, Sara only became aware of the problem when she failed to begin menstruating as a teenager.

While a small number of womb transplants have led to healthy births in experiments with mice, the procedure is almost completely untested in humans.

In 2000, doctors in Saudi Arabia transferred a womb from a dead donor into a 26-year-old woman, but had to remove the organ three months later when it developed a blood clot and began to die.

Sara Ottosson is one of seven patients who have undergone tests to assess their suitability for the operation under a programme run by Mats Brännström, a leader in the field of experimental womb transplants at Gothenburg University in Sweden. The operation could go ahead next year.

If the operation is approved, Sara would have surgery to transplant her mother's uterus before an IVF embryo created from her eggs and her partner's sperm was transferred.

A successful transplant would be temporary, with the uterus being removed two to three years later to avoid medical complications. Any birth would be via caesarean section.The operation is technically more demanding than a heart, kidney or liver transplant. Among the greatest risks are life-threatening haemorrhage and an insufficient blood supply to the womb.

Sara has said she will consider adoption if the transplant operation does not go ahead or fails to result in a baby. Some 15,000 women of childbearing age in Britain were born without a uterus or had the organ damaged or removed by illness, such as cancer.

In 2009, a team of surgeons and vets led by Richard Smith at Hammersmith Hospital in London reported several womb transplant operations in rabbits, though none of the animals became pregnant and carried young. The research has stalled in Britain through a lack of funding and scepticism from some in the medical community. The work is due to resume this year with support from an independent charity, Uterine Transplant UK.

Very early days for this procedure and it may not be approved at all for this woman, but it's incredible to think that this could some day be a success for women across the world.

How would people feel about something like this? Do you think you would go for it if you had been born without/lost your womb?

FouxDaFaFa

I heard this too and thought it was amazing. In theory, I think it's great and a testament to how much that mother must love her daughter. In reality though, I don't think it's wise to go through something so dangerous. Obviously she really wants to carry a child but the risks would scare me too much. It's a big operation with such a high risk of rejection, not to mind the additional c-section and hysterectomy operations that would follow if the woman were to have a baby. She's putting herself through a lot.Hopefully it works out for her though.

Chuchoter

As a feat of medicine, yeah this amazing. No doubt about it. However, whenever I hear these stories about women going to extra-ordinary lengths to have their own kids, it kind of makes me wonder about all the kids left with no families round the world. Maybe because I'm too young to even consider having kids I don't understand, but still.

The_Minister

crayolastereo wrote: »

As a feat of medicine, yeah this amazing. No doubt about it. However, whenever I hear these stories about women going to extra-ordinary lengths to have their own kids, it kind of makes me wonder about all the kids left with no families round the world. Maybe because I'm too young to even consider having kids I don't understand, but still.

I'm not a woman, but I can only imagine the sense of love and closeness that having a child grow inside you would create.

Also, you want one that is the product of you and your love in life, the truest merging of your selves that you can have.

ztoical

Well I am a woman and when every discussions like this come up I sometimes feel like I must be somehow less of a woman because I don't hold any urge or want to carry a child whatsoever and before anyone comes along with the 'you'll change your mind in a few years' I'm not some young girl who thinks childbirth is icky, I'm at the age were if I wanted kids I should be really thinking about having them now cus that clock is ticking and there's little time left and still I feel nothing and never have.

I know the 'you'll never know true love till you have a child of your own' chant will start but I've a number of cousins and close friends who were adopted and I don't think the love their families have for them is any less just because they aren't a 'product' of that family. It might sound cruel but sometimes you just have to accept it ain't going to happen. We've got serious population issues on this planet and plenty of kids that need a good home and family so honestly I find going to these lenghts just to have a child thats 'yours' a bit selfish if I'm totally honest.

Ophiopogon

The_Minister wrote: »

I'm not a woman, but I can only imagine the sense of love and closeness that having a child grow inside you would create.

Also, you want one that is the product of you and your love in life, the truest merging of your selves that you can have.

I know what you to intend to mean by this but I Presume that you do not think that this is the only way to create love and closeness, as obviously anyone who has not been raised by non birth parents and who come from a loving home would prove that this is always necessary.

I really am not sure how I feel about the OP article as my first thought had been why did they not try to adopt.

Ellis Dee

This sounds like a pretty significant medical advance, and I hope it works for them.

Clearly, the 56-year-old mother is past childbearing age and having her womb removed will probably not affect her life. The daughter, on the other hand, may be able to fulfil her dream of having a child of her own if all goes well. There are probably not many people who would begrudge her that.

If the technique is perfected, it could be used often, because there are certainly not only plenty of women who are past childbearing age, but also a good few who are not past it, but have decided they do not wish to become mothers for one reason or another - career, recognition that motherhood is not for them, they are nuns, their health would not be up to childbearing, so many reasons.

Anyway, I just wish the Swedish medical team and the potential patients the best of good luck.;)

Malari

ztoical wrote: »

Well I am a woman and when every discussions like this come up I sometimes feel like I must be somehow less of a woman because I don't hold any urge or want to carry a child whatsoever and before anyone comes along with the 'you'll change your mind in a few years' I'm not some young girl who thinks childbirth is icky, I'm at the age were if I wanted kids I should be really thinking about having them now cus that clock is ticking and there's little time left and still I feel nothing and never have.

I know the 'you'll never know true love till you have a child of your own' chant will start but I've a number of cousins and close friends who were adopted and I don't think the love their families have for them is any less just because they aren't a 'product' of that family. It might sound cruel but sometimes you just have to accept it ain't going to happen. We've got serious population issues on this planet and plenty of kids that need a good home and family so honestly I find going to these lenghts just to have a child thats 'yours' a bit selfish if I'm totally honest.

I honestly don't think you will get that "you'll change" chant in here. It's come up a lot of times before and I think there are quite a few who think like you (myself included) and more who are very accepting of those who are not having kids.

It does make it quite difficult for me to understand going to these lengths to have a pregnancy (not a baby). But I guess, like others do for me, I have to accept it, even if I can't fathom it.

ztoical

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Clearly, the 56-year-old mother is past childbearing age and having her womb removed will probably not affect her life. The daughter, on the other hand, may be able to fulfil her dream of having a child of her own if all goes well. There are probably not many people who would begrudge her that.

If the technique is perfected, it could be used often, because there are certainly not only plenty of women who are past childbearing age, but also a good few who are not past it, but have decided they do not wish to become mothers for one reason or another - career, recognition that motherhood is not for them, they are nuns, their health would not be up to childbearing, so many reasons.

Maybe I've just to much of a cynical outlook on life but the idea that you could have women selling their wombs is a bit horrific. Not every woman out there will have a mother or relative who can donate a womb to them and you'll end up creating a blackmarket for wombs just like other organs. People can say they can make it donation only to stop people trying to sell them but that didn't stop that young guy in China selling one of his kidneys so he could buy an iPad. You could find yourself with young health women trying to sell their wombs on the blackmarket then regretting it several years down the line.

LittleBook

Sara could conceive and carry a child in the same womb she herself was born from, but serious technical hurdles must be cleared if the procedure is to succeed.The operation is experimental and still at a premature stage in animal studies. Only a handful of mice have been born from transplanted wombs and little work has been done in larger animals, such as pigs, rabbits and monkeys.

The deeply complex nature of the operation carries serious risks for the donor and recipient, leading some doctors to claim the procedure is not ready to be performed in humans. While a small number of womb transplants have led to healthy births in experiments with mice, the procedure is almost completely untested in humans.

In 2000, doctors in Saudi Arabia transferred a womb from a dead donor into a 26-year-old woman, but had to remove the organ three months later when it developed a blood clot and began to die.

The operation is technically more demanding than a heart, kidney or liver transplant. Among the greatest risks are life-threatening haemorrhage and an insufficient blood supply to the womb.

In 2009, a team of surgeons and vets led by Richard Smith at Hammersmith Hospital in London reported several womb transplant operations in rabbits, though none of the animals became pregnant and carried young. The research has stalled in Britain through a lack of funding and scepticism from some in the medical community.

"As a mother you have all these questions: have you thought it through; do you know what you are doing; how do you feel about having the same womb that you have been developed in yourself," Eva Ottosson told the BBC.

"Of course it's major surgery and has its risks, but I trust them, I know they know what they're doing. I'm more concerned about my daughter and what the impact will be for her," she added.

I like to think I would do anything for my daughter but there's no fúcking way I'd let her do this.

IF it goes ahead, she will essentially be a guinea pig for a bunch of doctors who've been practising (so far unsuccessfully) on animals and I won't be facilitating my daughter being that for ANYthing other than an essential, life-saving procedure.

Sara has said she will consider adoption if the transplant operation does not go ahead or fails to result in a baby.

I know I'm going to get mashed for this but seriously, at what point do we just say "hey, it's a terrible shame but you were born without a womb so you simply can't have kids"?

Teyla Emmagan

I think this is ridiculous. If that woman wants to help her daughter have a baby, then can she not act as a surrogate for her? Why subject them both to a risky operation with a very low hope of success? Even if the womb does transplant properly there is no knowing if it will be able to carry a child to full term. As there is nothing wrong with the daughter's ovaries, a surrogate is the best option for her. Not ridiculous unnecessary surgery. This mother seems to be only thinking about psychological impact, not the physical impact (and likelihood of this procedure actually helping her daughter become a mother).

All very odd IMO, it seems like she only wants to get people talking as opposed to actually thinking about what would be the most practical thing to do.

liliq

I just found it really weird when I heard about it!

There's one thing wanting a baby... really really wanting a baby. And I can't imagine the pain a woman who really wants a baby must feel if they have a condition like this where she simply doesn't have some of the parts required.

But like other posters have said... there are so many things that can go wrong- with any surgery there are inherant risks, with any transplant there are further risks.
Of course a baby growing inside you is an amazing experience, but I don't think that not going through this process is going to make you love a baby any less. Especially if having a family is something you want so much that you'd consider going through a number of extreme surgeries that might not be successful.
I know that's not a reason itself to not go ahead with all the procedures, but it would be a serious consideration if I was in this womans' shoes.

Both myself and my brother are adopted, my parents tried for about 10 years to have a baby and weren't able- the fact that they wanted us so much... we were so special for them- only made us feel more loved.

There's no mention of the daughter having a partner in the article (unless I missed it)- maybe she wouldn't be considered for adoption, and this is why she's goign this route first? I'm sure there are reasons her choosing to try this...

I have to admit... the whole things leaves me feeling very uncomfortable!

Ellis Dee

ztoical wrote: »

Maybe I've just to much of a cynical outlook on life but the idea that you could have women selling their wombs is a bit horrific. Not every woman out there will have a mother or relative who can donate a womb to them and you'll end up creating a blackmarket for wombs just like other organs. People can say they can make it donation only to stop people trying to sell them but that didn't stop that young guy in China selling one of his kidneys so he could buy an iPad. You could find yourself with young health women trying to sell their wombs on the blackmarket then regretting it several years down the line.

You have a point all right, but I suppose you could say the same thing about all transplants: kidney, liver, heart, and so on.

If the medical advances that made those transplants possible had not been made, then a black market in transplant organs would never have come into being, either.

And a lot of people who are now leading full lives would be dead or strapped to life-support systems.

All medical advances are a good thing. If people misuse the knowledge and competence that these advances produce, it is regrettable, but a separate matter and not an argument against research and innovation in medicine.

Sweden has very high standards of research ethics, by the way, so you can be pretty sure that nothing extremely irresponsible will be done.

Morgase

This seems very strange to me. If I'm reading this correctly, the procedure has only been performed with limited success in mice and has barely been carried out on primates. IMO this procedure should not be carried out on humans at this far too early stage.

I would be advocating more animal testing before any human trials, but then I stop and ask myself why is this procedure needed at all.

I agree there has to be a point where you just have to stop and say "Look it's not nice that you were born without the necessary organs to produce your own child, but that's life." Granted, I have this attitude because I never will have children myself, but I just don't understand why it is so important that the child one loves and cares for be physically yours? Why go through such a horrific operation when the option of adoption is there?

liliq

Ellis Dee wrote: »

You have a point all right, but I suppose you could say the same thing about all transplants: kidney, liver, heart, and so on.

If the medical advances that made those transplants possible had not been made, then a black market in transplant organs would never have come into being, either.

And a lot of people who are now leading full lives would be dead or strapped to life-support systems.

All medical advances are a good thing. If people misuse the knowledge and competence that these advances produce, it is regrettable, but a separate matter and not an argument against research and innovation in medicine.

Sweden has very high standards of research ethics, by the way, so you can be pretty sure that nothing extremely irresponsible will be done.

I agree with this to an extent... but liver, kidneys, hearts, lungs etc... you need them to live. You don't need a uterus. This woman is not going to be strapped to a life support machine if she doesn't have this operation done- she's more likley to be strapped to one if she does have it done.

Dolbert

I can understand the basic biological desire to have a child that is genetically your own, but surely in this case surrogacy is a better option? It seems that actually being pregnant is more important to her here.

lace

I don't understand how surgeons are willing to allow this operation to be carried out when it's not been successfully tested in other animals. This young woman is putting herself at risk of extreme, life-threatening complications. Even if the transplant is successful and she does have a child (which seems extremely unlikely), she's going to have to have it removed again after a number of years. I've had many family members go through the pain of realizing they're unable to have children and I understand the immense yearning to bare biological children and the pain it can cause. But it seems irresponsible on the part of the doctors and surgeons involved to allow this grieving young woman to go through with this.

The other issue here is the sheer cost of an operation and aftercare like this. I presume she would have to pay for this herself. Or would it be part-funded because it's technically part of the research into the viability of this kind of transplant? Either way, it's going to cost a huge amount of money and potentially yield very disappointing results.

If she is willing to consider adoption at all, shouldn't that be a more favourable solution than an extremely dangerous surgery which has not yet been thoroughly tested?

Even if this procedure were proven to be safe and have a high success rate, I don't think I would ever consider it. There are so many children out there who need good homes. I'd rather just adopt than put myself and my family through such extreme procedures.

Bevvie

Articles like this annoy me slightly. Now don't get me wrong if she wants a child why cant she adopt? There are soo many kids out there who need loving homes, why go to such lengths to have a child? Is it more that she wants to be pregnant? I mean this could kill her.

It's like when you hear posts or read articles about people spending huge fortunes on IVF. I mean don't get me wrong I am not attacking couples that do, its just I cant understand the lengths some go to, when it comes to having a baby. I mean I understand the process of adoption is hard but is it as hard as going through several failed rounds of IVF?

And why not try Surrogacy?

TL : DR Why fight nature if you aren't meant to have kids naturally and adopt or Surrogacy?

bronte

I think it's very very ill-thought out.
So far experiments on animals have proven extremely risky. The woman does have my sympathy but why risk your life and that of the potential kid when there are other ways to be a parent?

Funny that they'll transplant a womb into her yet they so far point blank refuse to take mine out.

the_syco

From a dudes POV, I think it's a cool idea. My only problem is regarding the piece in the OP's article that mentioned

n 2000, doctors in Saudi Arabia transferred a womb from a dead donor into a 26-year-old woman, but had to remove the organ three months later when it developed a blood clot and began to die.

Heart, lung, leg, etc, were there before the operations, but the women doesn't have a womb, and thus there may not either be a support function for it, or there may be no link between the mothers brain and the womb. A lack of such links worry me, as her body may not "know" wtf to do if and when the foetus forms. Also, the woman may get stress if "her baby" dies due to unknown complications (such as some sort of tissue rejection).

Short version: unknown what parts of the womans body is missing due to MRKH, thus unknown if her body will know what to do when the womb is implanted?

iguana

LittleBook wrote: »

I know I'm going to get mashed for this but seriously, at what point do we just say "hey, it's a terrible shame but you were born without a womb so you simply can't have kids"?

By that logic you could just as well say, "hey, it's a terrible shame but you were born with a cancer gene so you simply can't live past 42." It's the exact same. Unless you've never sought medical intervention for anything then your point is completely hypocritical.

A HUGE part of the purpose of medicine is developing new techniques that can keep us well, elongate and improve our lives. We work on techniques to get people out of wheelchairs, to get them over cancer, to give them a new heart, to repair brain damage, to reverse the effects of ageing and yes, to improve people's ability to have their own biological child. And it's all wonderful. Why would you presume to judge who science should and shouldn't help? It seems unbelievably arrogant to me.

Personally I wouldn't be in a rush to try this procedure as it's so untested. If I was one of this mother/daughter pair I'd probably be more inclined to surrogacy as the risks all round seem far lower. Especially as you can try surrogacy numerous times if it's not successful as the womb itself is rarely at risk. But with this procedure if it goes wrong in even a minor way the womb is lost. Though I guess that all new procedures need someone to go first So if they are willing and understand the risks and the doctor/scientists are confident then it's their choice and I really hope it works out for them.

Ickle Magoo

I wouldn't be so keen for my daughter and prospective grandchild to be the pioneers of this procedure but if it were an established procedure then yes, I'd give my daughter my womb no problem.

I'm adopted and I have my own kids now and if I thought I could give my daughter the experience I've had without the issues that go with adoption - I wouldn't hesitate.

Max Power1

iguana wrote: »

By that logic you could just as well say, "hey, it's a terrible shame but you were born with a cancer gene so you simply can't live past 42." It's the exact same. Unless you've never sought medical intervention for anything then your point is completely hypocritical.

Much as I think it's a cool idea, that argument is nonsensical at best. To equate a necessary, life-prolonging surgery with elective surgery is ridiculous.

liliq

Bevvie wrote: »

It's like when you hear posts or read articles about people spending huge fortunes on IVF. I mean don't get me wrong I am not attacking couples that do, its just I cant understand the lengths some go to, when it comes to having a baby. I mean I understand the process of adoption is hard but is it as hard as going through several failed rounds of IVF?

I can understand IVF a lot easier than I can this transplant... IVF- you have everything you need it's just not working quite right sometimes. Some women, once they have a pregnancy with IVF, go on to have more children naturally, it's just their systems seems to need a bit of a kickstart.
When there's so many cycles though, and when your body has to go through so much- I can see what you mean to a point.

the_syco wrote: »

Heart, lung, leg, etc, were there before the operations, but the women doesn't have a womb, and thus there may not either be a support function for it, or there may be no link between the mothers brain and the womb. A lack of such links worry me, as her body may not "know" wtf to do if and when the foetus forms. Also, the woman may get stress if "her baby" dies due to unknown complications (such as some sort of tissue rejection).

Short version: unknown what parts of the womans body is missing due to MRKH, thus unknown if her body will know what to do when the womb is implanted?

She will probably be dosed with loads and loads of hormones to make sure that everything her body needs to make the uterus function properly is there. The fact that the uterus is coming from her mother who is of an age where she is probably gone through menopause means that the daughters body will have to restore the uterus to good functionality before she could become pregnant anyway, and so even if she'd had a uterus before, she'd still probably be pumped with hormones in order to achieve this.

iguana wrote: »

By that logic you could just as well say, "hey, it's a terrible shame but you were born with a cancer gene so you simply can't live past 42." It's the exact same. Unless you've never sought medical intervention for anything then your point is completely hypocritical.

It's not the same though- Not having a uterus is not going to kill you. Being susceptible to a type of cancer is completely different. Yes there is a quality of life issue, but that can be addressed through adoption or surogacy? Why does she have to be pregnant to have a child?

Ickle Magoo

What about kids with cleft palettes, laser eye surgery, prosthetics, etc, then? None of them prolong life, they are all about quality of life. I get Iguana's point though - some people have no issue with other non-essential medical interventions but as soon as you get anywhere near pregnancy and birth suddenly arms are thrown up and women who can't have kids without intervention should just accept their lot or start bombarding third world countries for their orphans....did the pioneers of IVF not cause much the same reactions/comments [not just here] as this?

Is it a religious thing? No offence meant, just curious...

Bevvie

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What about kids with cleft palettes, laser eye surgery, prosthetics, etc, then? None of them prolong life, they are all about quality of life. I get Iguana's point though - some people have no issue with other non-essential medical interventions but as soon as you get anywhere near pregnancy and birth suddenly arms are thrown up and women who can't have kids without intervention should just accept their lot or start bombarding third world countries for their orphans....did the pioneers of IVF not cause much the same reactions/comments [not just here] as this?

Is it a religious thing? No offence meant, just curious...

You cannot compare a surgery that is in a way a stupid risk to her life just because she wants a child! This lady was born without a functioning womb therefore she cannot have children. That is that. Surrogacy is a viable option along with adoption. She doesn't have to go to a 3rd world country to adopt, how about in her own?

cleft palette surgery, laser eye surgery, prosthetics are in a different league because as you stated are about quality of life. This lady could get the same quality of life from surrogacy and its not like the world has no surrogate moms, they are out there.

I wish to make my stance on IVF clear aswell, I support it, to a degree. If it gets to the stage that they are spending thousands on multiple attempts that fail, wouldn't a person be better of with surrogacy or adoption?

Also I'm an atheist, therefore religion doesn't drive my attitude. However I also do believe in not fecking with nature too much(e.g. Designer babies)

LittleBook

iguana wrote: »

By that logic you could just as well say, "hey, it's a terrible shame but you were born with a cancer gene so you simply can't live past 42." It's the exact same. Unless you've never sought medical intervention for anything then your point is completely hypocritical.

Not the same thing at all but to expand ... in my personal opinion risking death to have a baby is the point where one should consider the other options.

iguana

Max Power1 wrote: »

Much as I think it's a cool idea, that argument is nonsensical at best. To equate a necessary, life-prolonging surgery with elective surgery is ridiculous.

My point is that an awful lot of what was considered end-game in the past isn't any more. Science moves things forward and the idea that we should just accept anything because that's the way we were born is baffling.

LittleBook wrote: »

Not the same thing at all but to expand ... in my personal opinion risking death to have a baby is the point where one should consider the other options.

Well that's a completely different point than the one you made earlier. I agree that risking death where there are other options seems unthinkable but people have been doing that for children for generations. It's not that long ago since the risk of dying in childbirth was very high, certainly higher than the associated risks here. (Maternal death was over 40% during the 1800s due to poor medical practices.) Yet women kept having children then too. It's a biological urge, it's obviously worth the risk to her.

Ickle Magoo

Bevvie wrote: »

You cannot compare a surgery that is in a way a stupid risk to her life just because she wants a child! This lady was born without a functioning womb therefore she cannot have children. That is that. Surrogacy is a viable option along with adoption. She doesn't have to go to a 3rd world country to adopt, how about in her own?

I get all the risk stuff - and I've already qualified that as things stand I wouldn't be for having my daughter go through such a surgery - but if the surgery was no longer a risk to her, would you think it acceptable?

Bevvie wrote: »

cleft palette surgery, laser eye surgery, prosthetics are in a different league because as you stated are about quality of life. This lady could get the same quality of life from surrogacy and its not like the world has no surrogate moms, they are out there.

Sure, buuuuutttt - and again qualifying in the event that there is no risk to child or mother - there are plenty of people who don't NEED medical intervention that get it in order to enhance their lives. If she feels carrying a child would enhance hers and it's not a medical risk, then why not?

Bevvie wrote: »

I wish to make my stance on IVF clear aswell, I support it, to a degree. If it gets to the stage that they are spending thousands on multiple attempts that fail, wouldn't a person be better of with surrogacy or adoption?

Also I'm an atheist, therefore religion doesn't drive my attitude. However I also do believe in not fecking with nature too much(e.g. Designer babies)

Personally, and I speak as an adoptee, I've never understood why the over-population of other countries or children other people have that they can't/won't take care of should automatically become the responsibility of those who can't have kids - over and above the couples wish to have kids of their own.

I really don't understand why giving a man the gift of sight with donor corneas is wonderful and all that is good with surgery and doing the same with a womb is "fecking with nature"...

iguana

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I really don't understand why giving a man the gift of sight with donor corneas is wonderful and all that is good with surgery and doing the same with a womb is "fecking with nature"...

I always get the squicky feeling that these comments come from deep down, subconscious belief in eugenics. That there is a feeling that if people can't have children naturally then it might be for a reason and they shouldn't be polluting the gene pool with people who needed medical intervention in order to exist.

Bevvie

iguana wrote: »

I always get the squicky feeling that these comments come from deep down, subconscious belief in eugenics. That there is a feeling that if people can't have children naturally then it might be for a reason and they shouldn't be polluting the gene pool with people who needed medical intervention in order to exist.

Actually my beliefs stemmed from not mucking up with nature, seeing family friends go through multiple courses of IVF and failing and the fact she is risking her life over a child that she could have in so many other ways.

However after Ickle Magoo's post I have been thinking and I wish to revise my position, I don't flip-flop but if an argument is good enough I will change my idea. We are already mucking with nature with implanting cornea's in blind people etc. and it hasn't done any harm and I suppose it will do good in the long run but I worry though How far is too far? When will science's interference in nature stop?

If it works and she survives then it can give hope for some childless couples.

Also i couldn't give a toss about the gene pool

Neyite

Bevvie wrote: »

She doesn't have to go to a 3rd world country to adopt, how about in her own?

If it is anything like Ireland, yes she will. Very few Irish children have been given up for adoption in recent years - mothers are keeping their babies, which is a great thing. However for those of us embarking on assistance to have our families, this means that we have to go through HSE approval and adopt from a country who has signed up to the Hague Agreement. You cant just nip over to china and pick up a baby girl.

cleft palette surgery, laser eye surgery, prosthetics are in a different league because as you stated are about quality of life. This lady could get the same quality of life from surrogacy and its not like the world has no surrogate moms, they are out there.

Surrogacy in Ireland has no legal standing. It is neither legal nor illegal. All you have is a verbal agreement with a woman who can change her mind not to part with the child. Not a risk I would take for my long awaited child.

I wish to make my stance on IVF clear aswell, I support it, to a degree. If it gets to the stage that they are spending thousands on multiple attempts that fail, wouldn't a person be better of with surrogacy or adoption?

I find it really sad that some women on this thread (who have clearly stated that they have no interest in having children and would be very pissed off if someone dared to tell them they should have children) are very quick to to be dismissive of fellow women who are having fertility problems telling them to choose another option. Like we really have them?

I will respect and defend any woman who chooses not to have children, and it would be nice in response to give acknowledgement of my right to try to become a mother whatever way that it works out for me.

Medically this case is interesting, but I really dont think that they sound like they are anywher near ready to try to implant an embryo there to grow. I have concerns that a pregnancy would put far too much strain on the uterus and until they can be certain of success they should not be attempting a pregnancy until they have fully tested the procedure.

Bevvie

Neyite wrote: »

If it is anything like Ireland, yes she will. Very few Irish children have been given up for adoption in recent years - mothers are keeping their babies, which is a great thing. However for those of us embarking on assistance to have our families, this means that we have to go through HSE approval and adopt from a country who has signed up to the Hague Agreement. You cant just nip over to china and pick up a baby girl.


Surrogacy in Ireland has no legal standing. It is neither legal nor illegal. All you have is a verbal agreement with a woman who can change her mind not to part with the child. Not a risk I would take for my long awaited child.


I find it really sad that some women on this thread (who have clearly stated that they have no interest in having children and would be very pissed off if someone dared to tell them they should have children) are very quick to to be dismissive of fellow women who are having fertility problems telling them to choose another option. Like we really have them?

I will respect and defend any woman who chooses not to have children, and it would be nice in response to give acknowledgement of my right to try to become a mother whatever way that it works out for me.

Medically this case is interesting, but I really dont think that they sound like they are anywher near ready to try to implant an embryo there to grow. I have concerns that a pregnancy would put far too much strain on the uterus and until they can be certain of success they should not be attempting a pregnancy until they have fully tested the procedure.

Actually I have a daughter, and as I said already I am NOT judging women who use IVF(I have family friends who used it multiple times, it failed, ended up breaking their marriage). It's just that if there were those options to choose from then she should go for it. It is a shame that Ireland doesn't support surrogacy. I wish to repeat I was NOT attacking any woman using IVF its just I saw the strain it could cause on my family friends.

I found was references to Eugenics(Eugenics is the "applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population," usually referring to human populations) basically practising "racial hygiene" and it was used by the nazi's quite frustrating and assumptions that some of us have no right to criticise due to the fact that some don't want/have kids. I have a daughter and I know how lucky I am to be able to have a child but would I go to such desperate lengths to have one? No.

Neyite

Bevvie wrote: »

Actually I have a daughter, and as I said already I am NOT judging women who use IVF(I have family friends who used it multiple times, it failed, ended up breaking their marriage). It's just that if there were those options to choose from then she should go for it. It is a shame that Ireland doesn't support surrogacy. I wish to repeat I was NOT attacking any woman using IVF its just I saw the strain it could cause on my family friends.

I agree, it can cause a massive strain on the relationship, and a massive drain on the savings. I seriously hope that I get lucky before IVF becomes a necessity. In my case, adoption is not feasible as we are not married. So that only leaves...well, fertility treatment really. I think if we fostered (assuming we were allowed to) and had to send a child back to a rough home it would break my heart more than IVF failures would. If a surrogate mom kept our baby I dont think I could get over that ever.

I was not challenging what you said, It was a response to the several posts prior to yours suggesting surrogacy or adoption as an alternative to assisted conception - I merely wanted to point out that those options are not necessarily options for most.

Bevvie

Neyite wrote: »

I was not challenging what you said, It was a response to the several posts prior to yours suggesting surrogacy or adoption as an alternative to assisted conception - I merely wanted to point out that those options are not necessarily options for most.

Ah my bad I can get a bit... heated sometimes. Also it annoys me that surrogacy isn't recognised here, you'd think we'd hurry up and modernize but then I realise its Ireland! Its either goin to happen at a very slow pace or not at all:rolleyes:

Stheno

Bevvie wrote: »

Actually I have a daughter, and as I said already I am NOT judging women who use IVF(I have family friends who used it multiple times, it failed, ended up breaking their marriage). It's just that if there were those options to choose from then she should go for it.

She can't use IVF as she has no functioning uterus to support an embryo/foetus.

I'd consider that she should look into surrogacy if Sweden supports it (she's based in Sweden) before having surgery such as this, as it's highly dangerous given how experimental and unproven even on apes it is.

That said, medical advances have been progressively more and more in recent years. I reading a fiction book earlier this week where medicine had advanced to growing replacement limbs and organs for people, who knows what happen in the future?

Bevvie

Stheno wrote: »

She can't use IVF as she has no functioning uterus to support an embryo/foetus.

I wasn't referring to the lady in the article, i was just clearing up my opinion of IVF as 1/2 posters thought i was being negative toward assisted reproduction incl. IVF.

Neyite

Stheno wrote: »

it's highly dangerous given how experimental and unproven even on apes it is.

This is the bit that does not sit well with me about the procedure as it currently stands - in the future this procedure could be as commonplace as anything, but at the moment it needs more testing. If they cant get it right on primates, why on earth are they moving onto humans.

Stheno

Neyite wrote: »

This is the bit that does not sit well with me about the procedure as it currently stands - in the future this procedure could be as commonplace as anything, but at the moment it needs more testing. If they cant get it right on primates, why on earth are they moving onto humans.

That's it really and as well, if a human recipient of a uterus were to wait until testing for viability e.g. 2-3 years post op success, then realistically that's five plus years of animal testing still to be done.

iguana

Bevvie wrote: »

I found was references to Eugenics(Eugenics is the "applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population," usually referring to human populations) basically practising "racial hygiene" and it was used by the nazi's quite frustrating and assumptions that some of us have no right to criticise due to the fact that some don't want/have kids.

Eugenics of different kinds has been advocated and used by a lot more people and groups than the nazis. Not everything that the nazis did was done soley by the nazis and not every mention of those things has anything at all to do with the nazis. Your implication that I was referring to anyone as a nazi is a very, very poor strawman.

Your immediate reaction to IVF was that it's meddling with nature, while you immediately decided that cleft palette surgery, laser eye surgery, prosthetics were in a "different league." When the fact is that one meddles with nature no more than the other. It's utterly bizzare, I don't get how so many people believe that one way of meddling with nature is fine but another is :mad:meddling with nature:mad:. They are the same, it's just that the latter results in new people who might not otherwise existed. So yup, I do conclude that people who think that way do so because they don't think the 32and a bit years of IVF people should ever have existed in the first place and I wonder why.

LittleBook

iguana wrote: »

Well that's a completely different point than the one you made earlier.

Only if you take it out of the context of the rest of my post which refers in detail to the risks involved to the donor and the recipient, the untested nature of the procedure, the failures so far and the fact that, in spite of all this, adoption is considered the second best option.

No-one risked death for IVF and other fertility solutions as far as I know.

And sorry, I hate to guerilla post but I have to bow out now as I'm travelling, just wanted to clarify my position.

Morag

I think it's weird.
Surrogacy is one thing but a womb transplant, pass.

Ickle Magoo

Why is it any weirder than a kidney transplant, or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, test tube babies, harvesting bone, taking organs from dead people or any of the other ways medicine now intervenes in order to let what would other wise be impossible, possible...

What I think is weird is just because the particular bunch of cells and blood vessels and muscle that make up this particular transplant can support pregnancy that it suddenly becomes unreasonable and indulgent...