Ethical & Moral implications - Transplanted Uterus

  • Thread starter Thread starter lizaanne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lizaanne

Guest
This is interesting I think.

ABC News Article

Even if it’s not probably going to happen for 10+ years or at all according to reports, I’m wondering what all you fine people think about the ethical and moral implications of this as an option for those women who are unable to conceive using their own wombs.

With the assumption that the couple would be able to have normal intercourse, and NO artificial reproductive technologies are used such as IVF for IUI, what would be wrong with this transplant procedure? The couple would be able to conceive normally (an assumption), and no genetic material of any other person would be involved, only the husband and wife.

So - what do you think? Would it be ok for a Catholic to undergo such a procedure?

~Liza
 
With the assumption that the couple would be able to have normal intercourse, and NO artificial reproductive technologies are used such as IVF for IUI, what would be wrong with this transplant procedure? The couple would be able to conceive normally (an assumption), and no genetic material of any other person would be involved, only the husband and wife.
Click to expand...
Those are pretty big assumptions, and NOT the procedure invisioned by the article.

The procedure described in the article would temporarily add a uterus to a woman. If the risks could be made low enough, fine.

The problem comes in with how any pregnancy would take place.

As currently proposed it would be either A) the original owner of the uterus’s genetic baby (through regular ovulation etc), or B) the new owner’s genetic baby would be concieved through IVF (from frozen eggs) and then implanted in the new uterus.

Both of these are unacceptable to the Church. IVF, of course, because it removes the unitive aspect of sex (procreation must take place in the context of the natural sex act) as well as because of the horrible treatment of “leftover” embryos. And gamete transplantation is not allowed either. You cannot transplant testicles or ovaries of another person, and have one person reproducing by another’s germ cells.

For the procedure to be acceptable (assuming risks were made low enough) the doctors would have to attach the woman’s old ovaries to the new uterus. Or at least find a way to place at least one of her old eggs be placed in one of the new fallopian tubes so it could be fertilized naturally. But that is not what is being proposed currently.
 
An additional moral problem could occur if a poor woman sold her healthy uterus to an infertile rich woman. In our culture, that would happen. A woman is allowed to govern her uterus by the very fact that she can have a baby aborted at will. Why would society prevent her from giving her uterus to someone else? It’s her body, right?

IMHO, the science is great if you can work out the moral dilemas. It certainly could provide hope for infertile women; however, it is stepping out onto a slippery slope that I’m not sure our American culture is ready to handle.
 
First, my apologies, I did not realize there was a third page to the article. :o

The selling of body parts is illegal, I don’t see that changing.

Yes - I made some assumptions, because we just don’t know enough about it. I was interested in the situation of one woman giving birth to a child by way of a transplanted uterus. All else being normal and “original”, the genetic material (sperm and egg), the method of conception (natural intercourse within a sacramental marriage).

Is it still moral? Is it still ethical?

~Liza
 
StCsDavid said:
An additional moral problem could occur if a poor woman sold her healthy uterus to an infertile rich woman. In our culture, that would happen. A woman is allowed to govern her uterus by the very fact that she can have a baby aborted at will. Why would society prevent her from giving her uterus to someone else? It’s her body, right?
Click to expand...
There are young girls selling their eggs to couples all over the country for that elusive chance to have a baby. It’s ridiculous.
40.png
lizaanne:
The selling of body parts is illegal, I don’t see that changing.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that selling of body parts doesn’t happen. And, if we peruse the news headlines, we’ll see that there have been gouls removing body parts from cadavers for the sake of making some money from transplant patients.

This is all scary. It’s a very slippery slope and our society is doing NOTHING to curtail it. There are couples out there who are so dang desperate to have a pregnancy that they’re willing to do anything.
 
It appears that any transplant requires heavy use of drugs to supress rejection. I wonder how safe those drugs are for the baby?
 
Joe_Kelley said:
It appears that any transplant requires heavy use of drugs to supress rejection. I wonder how safe those drugs are for the baby?
Click to expand...
From the national kidney foundation:
"Is becoming pregnant easier for a kidney transplant recipient than for a dialysis patient?

Yes. A woman who has had a kidney transplant usually has more regular periods and better general health. Therefore, it is easier for her to get pregnant and have a child. However, pregnancy is not recommended for at least one year after the transplant, even with stable kidney function. In some cases, pregnancy is not recommended because of risk to the mother’s life or possible loss of the transplant.
Can medicines taken by transplant patients harm an unborn child?

The amount of anti-rejection medicines is important. In the early period after a transplant, patients are on higher doses of these medicines. Once the medicines are reduced to maintenance levels, they do not seem to have negative effects on a developing baby. However, long-term side effects are still unknown. A woman transplant patient who is considering pregnancy should discuss any possible risks with her doctor."

kidney.org/atoz/atozItem.cfm?id=104

It might be about a kidney transplant, but the immunosuppresant meds are the same.
 
The first thing my wife said when we heard about this is that we are one step closer to men having babies.:eek:
 
I don’t think the immunosuppresent meds, would be nearly as harmful as other types of meds. The chemicals main purpose is to decrease the immune system, which isn’t really something that is being underdevelopement by the unborn child. Thats not to say that it could indirectly effect something underdevelopment. I don’t think you don’t want the immune system suppressed too much, the pregnancy is only going to tax the body with more stress.

I don’t know if I see too many problems objectivly regarding morals, unless it inclueds the overies. How the organ is obtained is one thing that has to be closely watch. Making sure the woman is properly screened is important, and weighing that against the risk.

I just don’t think it’s a good prudent decision. That is a lot of money, and a lot of stress for the body, and one doesn’t even know if it’ll work out or how much it’ll cost. Pre-translpant and actual transplant, then not knowing what post-transplant treatments you’ll need, also if and when it fails. I doubt insurance will cover it If they do, I’d rather they not, why spend the pool of money on that? I don’t know if you could have Rx insurance cover it, those meds cost a lot. Goodness, just go and adopt!
 
I am reminded of one of my favorite cartoons:

Three lab workers are standing before their boss. They hold a tray with a pile of gray dust labeled “Dehydrated Elephant”. One is saying, “Of course we don’t need it, but it shows what a lot of time and money will do for research.” :rolleyes:
 
To quote Fr. Benedict Goreschel, “First they want to have sex with out babies, now they want to have babies without sex!”
–KCT
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top