Ovary transplant - okay or not okay?

[tau_gamma_pi]

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7731186.stm

(feel free to move to news if that works better)

Is this morally permissible?

Ovary transplant baby ‘a miracle’
Pregnant woman
The child was conceived naturally after the world’s first whole ovary transplant

The first woman in the world to have a whole ovary transplant has spoken of her delight at giving birth to a healthy baby girl.

Susanne Butscher was given the ovary by her twin sister Dorothee a year ago, after developing an early menopause.

She gave birth to Maja, who is genetically her niece, at the Portland Hospital in London on Tuesday.

The 39-year-old told the Daily Telegraph the newborn child was a “little miracle”.

“Being the first woman in the world to give birth after a whole ovary transplant hasn’t sunk in yet, but I’m just so grateful to the doctors who enabled this to happen, and to my sister, of course,” she said.

Hope

Mrs Butcher, who is German, gave birth by elective Caesarean at the private hospital after she reached full term but without experiencing any labour pains.

She told the newspaper she hoped her story would offer hope to other women in the same position.

When I saw her for the first time I just cried. She really is a little miracle
Susanne Butscher

She said: “I’m so lucky to have had this wonderful opportunity, which has given me a sense of completeness I would never have had otherwise.”

Her daughter Maja, who weighed 7lb 15oz (3.6kg) when she was born, was named after the Roman goddess of fertility.

Mrs Butscher said: “When I saw her for the first time I just cried. She really is a little miracle.”

The acupuncturist and complementary therapist said she had first found out she was infertile 12 years ago.

But she, and her husband Stephan, 40, conceived naturally after her twin, who has two children herself, donated the ovary.

The transplant operation was carried out by Dr Sherman Silber, who is based at the Infertility Centre of St Louis, in Missouri, USA.
The Portland Hospital
The birth took place at the Portland Hospital in London on Tuesday

He has given ovarian tissue transplants to nine twins previously, but Mrs Butscher’s case was the first successful whole ovary transplant.

The ovary was implanted using microsurgical techniques to reattach it to its blood supply and hold it in place alongside the fallopian tube, so that eggs could be expelled and travel down the tube towards the womb in the normal way.

Dr Silber announced the birth at the American Society of Reproductive Medicine Conference in San Francisco earlier this week.

He told the conference that the full ovary transplant was likely to last longer than strips of ovarian tissue, and might allow a woman’s ovary to be removed and put back after extended storage.

This, he said, could allow women who are delaying motherhood for career or other reasons to improve their chances of having a baby later in life.

 

[1ke]

No, this would not be a morally acceptable procedure.

 

[Corki]

No, this would not be a morally acceptable procedure.

That’s my knee jerk reaction too but on what grounds?

The child is conceived normally. There is nothing getting in the way of the unitive aspect of the marital act.

You could say that a third party is involved but that is a bit of a stretch.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Is there a moral difference between an ovary transplant and a kidney transplant? The main thing that comes to mind is that one can be life saving while the other is elective, but I don’t think elective surgery is necessarily immoral.

 

[Rolltide]

An ovary transplant would, by definition, involve the ovary of another woman, and would contain the eggs of the other woman. It would fall under the same moral prohibitions as surrogate motherhood, since the DNA in the eggs would not be the mother’s own.

 

[Seatuck]

I know the church hasn’t explicitly ruled on this yet. I 'm not sure about the ovary transplant. It could go either way.As long as the ovary is taken from a woman who has died I don’t think it is problematic. But a live donor ? No I don’t think so.

As far as taking out your ovaries and saving them for later that would not be acceptable. That is sterilization now with the hopes of reversing it later.

That’s my two cents.

 

[Corki]

An ovary transplant would, by definition, involve the ovary of another woman, and would contain the eggs of the other woman. It would fall under the same moral prohibitions as surrogate motherhood, since the DNA in the eggs would not be the mother’s own.

Does the Church rule on DNA? For example, I don’t think the church has ruled that there is anything morally wrong with gene therapy.

I know the church hasn’t explicitly ruled on this yet. I 'm not sure about the ovary transplant. It could go either way.As long as the ovary is taken from a woman who has died I don’t think it is problematic. But a live donor ? No I don’t think so.

As far as taking out your ovaries and saving them for later that would not be acceptable. That is sterilization now with the hopes of reversing it later.

That’s my two cents.

Why would the donor have to be dead? For example, kidney donation is fine since you have two. Women have two ovaries too.

I am not saying this is a good idea, but I am not sure it is morally or theologically prohibited.

 

[1ke]

That’s my knee jerk reaction too but on what grounds?

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

2376 **Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple **(**donation of **sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ “right to become a father and a mother only through each other.”

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

A while ago I read an article (I wish I could find it) about a woman who was to undergo chemotherapy. She had part of one of her ovaries frozen, did chemotherapy which brought on early menopause. The part of her ovary was then re-implanted, and jump started both her ovaries to function again. I think the Church would find nothing wrong with that.

I wonder if the mechanism in the situation in the OP functioned similarly, the ovary from the donor caused the recipient’s ovary to start working again? I’m not sure, I’m not a doctor and am just speculating.

I’m not sure what the answer is, although I tend to agree with1ke.

 

[porthos11]

I think, but I don’t remember the source, that transplants of all organs are permissible except the brain and gonads (ovaries for women, testicles for men).

 

[Ruthie]

2376 **Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple **(**donation of **sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ “right to become a father and a mother only through each other.”

I’m hard put to see that an ovary transplant violates the above.

As far as I know, a *donated *ovum must be fertilized in vitro before being implanted, which means the baby is not conceived by the marital act. Again, surrogacy is either achieved by implanting a fertilized egg, or by adultery, both of which we know are wrong.

Since the transplantation of the ovary allows the child to be conceived and born in the right way, I tend to think that the fact that the egg may not be genetically the mother’s is no more important than it is in adoption.

However, if the Church disagrees with me on this, I will change my mind.

God bless us all,

Ruthie

 

[Holly3278]

An ovary transplant would, by definition, involve the ovary of another woman, and would contain the eggs of the other woman. It would fall under the same moral prohibitions as surrogate motherhood, since the DNA in the eggs would not be the mother’s own.

See, this is the thing that leads me to believe that the Church would declare an ovary transplant to be immoral.

 

[Seatuck]

Does the Church rule on DNA? For example, I don’t think the church has ruled that there is anything morally wrong with gene therapy.

Why would the donor have to be dead? For example, kidney donation is fine since you have two. Women have two ovaries too.

I am not saying this is a good idea, but I am not sure it is morally or theologically prohibited.

In the one discussion I heard on this by a moral theologian he cited the right of a child to be born of to his/her natural parents. There was also mention of there now being a third party involved if the woman was alive. Kidneys do not involve infertility and reproduction. Ovary transplant is not necessary for life. This hasn’t been thoroughly discussed or ruled on at this point by any means. It might get declared to by fine. I don’t know. Just offering my part to the conversation based on some principals we already know limit fertility treatments.

 

[Seatuck]

A while ago I read an article (I wish I could find it) about a woman who was to undergo chemotherapy. She had part of one of her ovaries frozen, did chemotherapy which brought on early menopause. The part of her ovary was then re-implanted, and jump started both her ovaries to function again. I think the Church would find nothing wrong with that.

I wonder if the mechanism in the situation in the OP functioned similarly, the ovary from the donor caused the recipient’s ovary to start working again? I’m not sure, I’m not a doctor and am just speculating.

I’m not sure what the answer is, although I tend to agree with1ke.

I tend to agree with the above scenario of a woman preserving her fertility due to illness not due to postponement. I like you will wait to see what the church says on the matter.

 

[Fran65]

It strikes me that confusion could arise in the child’s mind as they grow up concerning who is their biological mother. This is what could be disruptive to the unity of the family in my opinion.

It is neither adoption nor ‘normal’ conception.

That is how I see CCC para 2376 being relevant here.

 

[1ke]

I’m hard put to see that an ovary transplant violates the above.

As far as I know, a *donated *ovum must be fertilized in vitro before being implanted, which means the baby is not conceived by the marital act. Again, surrogacy is either achieved by implanting a fertilized egg, or by adultery, both of which we know are wrong.

Since the transplantation of the ovary allows the child to be conceived and born in the right way, I tend to think that the fact that the egg may not be genetically the mother’s is no more important than it is in adoption.

However, if the Church disagrees with me on this, I will change my mind.

God bless us all,

Ruthie

Ruthie, you’re really suspending all disbelief to think that donating “ovum” and donating an “ovary” are different morally. The paragraph I quotes clearly stated that techinques that involve a **third party **are immoral. Transplanting an ovary involves a third party in the conception of the child.

And, reading the rest of the paragraph you cannot conclude that this child would be born of its natural parents-- it would “infringe the **child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him **and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ **‘right to become a father and a mother **only through each other.’”

 

[Fidelia]

Ruthie, you’re really suspending all disbelief to think that donating “ovum” and donating an “ovary” are different morally. The paragraph I quotes clearly stated that techinques that involve a **third party **are immoral. Transplanting an ovary involves a third party in the conception of the child.

And, reading the rest of the paragraph you cannot conclude that this child would be born of its natural parents-- it would “infringe the **child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him **and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ **‘right to become a father and a mother **only through each other.’”

Also, it is a very drastic measure to take, when they should really adopt a child who needs a home if they feel called to be parents but can’t conceive their own.

 

[Newbie2]

An ovary transplant would, by definition, involve the ovary of another woman, and would contain the eggs of the other woman. It would fall under the same moral prohibitions as surrogate motherhood, since the DNA in the eggs would not be the mother’s own.

Ditto.

Very bizarre practice; the child is not the transplant recipient’s but is from the donor.

Yeah, why not adopt? As long as the recipient has someone else’s organ(s), she will need to be on immunosuppressive therapy.

I think there is some implicit selfishness in such a practice.

 

[didymus]

How about an ovary or testicle* transplant from an identical twin? Same DNA, in effect the same parent.

*can they do testicle transplants? The plumbing is so much smaller.

 

[pathia]

An important note. It’s not in this article, but from what I read elsewhere. She did NOT do it to have a child.

Her ovaries stopped working correctly very prematurely and her SISTER donated one so she could live a more normal life. Not having ovaries work due to age (menopause) is one thing, having malfunctioning ovaries in your 20’s is another matter entirely.