Ovary transplant - okay or not okay?

[NTOT]

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

Suppose they can. What happens when a deadbeat dad decides he no longer wants to pay child support? He welcomes a DNA test and low and behold, he is “proven” not the father.

 

[Seatuck]

According to the following article it’s a definite no. I’d like to see the magesterial document . I’ll look later unless someone else can find it.

Indeed, the magisterium prohibits the transplantation of only two kinds of human tissue into another human being: gamete-producing organs (ovaries and testicles) transplanted for the primary or sole purpose of producing gametes, and brain transplants. Both kinds of transplants are prohibited for the same reason: our brains and our sexual organs are the foci of our identities.

I realize the focus of the article is another topic but the information in the above paragraph is pertinent.

lifeissues.net/writers/kell/kell_01embryoadoption.html

 

[Fran65]

In this case it would seem from pathia’s post that the primary purpose may have been to prevent premature menopause by the production of sex hormones of the donated ovary. That would, it seems, be permissible. If the primary purpose was to enable conception then it would not according to Seatuck’s post.

 

[Ruthie]

1ke,

I can see your point of view, which hadn’t occurred to me before. I haven’t changed my mind yet, but you’ve given me something to think about.

I hope Seatuck can find that document. That’ll show me!

God bless us all,

Ruthie, grumpy and ill

 

[Fidelia]

According to the following article it’s a definite no. I’d like to see the magesterial document . I’ll look later unless someone else can find it.

I realize the focus of the article is another topic but the information in the above paragraph is pertinent.

lifeissues.net/writers/kell/kell_01embryoadoption.html

Where did you find the quote about not transplanting brains and reproductive organs. (I’m not disputing what it says, I’m just curious about what it came from.)
oops bad typo!

 

[erinelf88]

See, if the donor was an identical twin, then the genetic material wouldn’t be different. And it isn’t harming the fertility of the other twin, so… I don’t really know. Just a thought.

Then again, if we start saying “only identical twins can do this because the genetic material is the same,” then undeniably people are going to argue, and there’s always the question of “could I clone an organ of my own and have it implanted into my body, since the genetic material is the same?”

 

[graceandglory]

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, I would see it as a transplant of any other organ. If it is replacing a defective organ, then I would think it might be permissible.

Since when is DNA part of the Church’s definition of parenthood?

The woman ovulates. She has intercourse with her husband while she is fertile. She conceives and gives birth to the baby she conceived with her husband. Sounds like it’s unitive and procreative sex that results in a baby.

(Really, I’m just guessing here, too, I don’t think the Church has ruled on this yet.)

Fun question though.

 

[Seatuck]

Where did you find the quote about not transplanting brains and reproductive organs. (I’m not disputing what it says, I’m just curious about what it came from.)
oops bad typo!

The Quote is from the article I linked to. What I’d like to find is a magesterial document that says the same thing but I haven’t found it yet.

 

[graceandglory]

(Really, I’m just guessing here, too, I don’t think the Church has ruled on this yet.)

Fun question though.

I stand corrected.

Indeed,** the magisterium prohibits the transplantation of only two kinds of human tissue into another human being: gamete-producing organs **(ovaries and testicles) transplanted for the primary or sole purpose of producing gametes, and brain transplants. Both kinds of transplants are prohibited for the same reason: our brains and our sexual organs are the foci of our identities/B].

Interesting. I’ve never heard that before.

 

[Seatuck]

See, I would see it as a transplant of any other organ. If it is replacing a defective organ, then I would think it might be permissible.

Since when is DNA part of the Church’s definition of parenthood?

The woman ovulates. She has intercourse with her husband while she is fertile. She conceives and gives birth to the baby she conceived with her husband. Sounds like it’s unitive and procreative sex that results in a baby.

(Really, I’m just guessing here, too, I don’t think the Church has ruled on this yet.)

Fun question though.

I think the objection could come from the understanding that the couple come together in the marital act and donate their personhood to create new life much in the same way that Christ donates his self to us in the Eucharist to create new life in us. It seems that the argument could be made that if you use another woman’s ovary you’re making a donation of her not yourself.

It is fascinating .

 

[pathia]

Indeed, the magisterium prohibits the transplantation of only two kinds of human tissue into another human being: gamete-producing organs (ovaries and testicles) transplanted for the primary or sole purpose of producing gametes, and brain transplants. Both kinds of transplants are prohibited for the same reason: our brains and our sexual organs are the foci of our identities

I am assuming this is talking about FUNCTIONAL gamete-producing organs. We only need one of them, but this lady had NO working ovaries. I mean, if they are the ‘foci of our identities’, heck does that mean anyone who’s sterile is like, half a person?

 

[graceandglory]

In this case it would seem from pathia’s post that the primary purpose may have been to prevent premature menopause by the production of sex hormones of the donated ovary. That would, it seems, be permissible. If the primary purpose was to enable conception then it would not according to Seatuck’s post.

The Church permits a woman to take progesterone and estrogen hormones in order to prevent facial hair, which btw, are oral contraceptives. It’s permissible to take them to cure an illness, (facial hair or excessive bleeding), but not to contracept. If a side effect of taking hormones is that it makes you sterile, that’s an unfortunate side effect, that’s all.

So, using the same reasoning, if an ovary transplant can restore a woman’s fertility, wouldn’t it be to cure an illness?

 

[graceandglory]

I am assuming this is talking about FUNCTIONAL gamete-producing organs. We only need one of them, but this lady had NO working ovaries. ** I mean, if they are the ‘foci of our identities’, heck does that mean anyone who’s sterile is like, half a person?**

I agree with you here, pathia.
I don’t think of my ovaries as the focus of my identity. There are other things that make me feminine. Not just my egg producing ability. I think the Church would back me up on this.

 

[graceandglory]

Transplanting an ovary involves a third party in the conception of the child.

I disagree.

A person with a donated ovary is in the same place as a person with their own functional ovary. They still have to trust God in order to conceive. There is still a chance that they won’t conceive.

 

[Seatuck]

Ok , one step closer. At least it’s a Vatican Document.

1. Ethically, not all organs can be donated. The brain and the gonads may not be transplanted because they ensure the personal and procreative identity respectively. These are organs which embody the characteristic uniqueness of the person, which medicine is bound to protect.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCPAHEAL.HTM

 

[graceandglory]

Ok , one step closer. At least it’s a Vatican Document.

. Ethically, not all organs can be donated. The brain and the gonads may not be transplanted

Oh, shoot. I forget.

What’s a gonad?

 

[Seatuck]

Oh, shoot. I forget.

What’s a gonad?

Ovaries and testes. I hope you read the rest of that quote because it pretty much disagrees with your previous post. I know that was a significant piece for me in this discussion.

 

[Seatuck]

I am assuming this is talking about FUNCTIONAL gamete-producing organs. We only need one of them, but this lady had NO working ovaries. I mean, if they are the ‘foci of our identities’, heck does that mean anyone who’s sterile is like, half a person?

Did you miss the “brain” part of that quote?

 

[pathia]

Did you miss the “brain” part of that quote?

If those two parts are our ‘foci’ then it goes to show missing one or the other makes us incomplete. I am more than my gonads, especially considering I haven’t had them since I was 3.

 

[Seatuck]

If those two parts are our ‘foci’ then it goes to show missing one or the other makes us incomplete. I am more than my gonads, especially considering I haven’t had them since I was 3.

It refers to your abilit to transmit your personhood to create a new life. Yes you are missing that and that makes you incomplete in the area of procreative identity. As am I.