'Uterus transplant could be tomorrow'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rosalinda
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rosalinda

Guest
Interesting possibilities here.
IF A person walked in tomorrow and requested a uterine transplant, I am cautiously optimistic that we could be successful." So says Giuseppe Del Priore, of New York Downtown Hospital, who has approval for such a transplant from the hospital’s review board. He has potential donors lined up, and is interviewing women who would like to receive a donated uterus.
Thousands of women with perfectly good ovaries but lacking a functioning uterus would be interested. If a uterus transplant was carried out tomorrow, it would only be the second ever. Would it be safe? The first was in Saudi Arabia in 2000 and it fail…
newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19225774.900?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19225774.900
 
The medications needed by a recipient of any transplant, excepting cornea and bone marrow, are extremely powerful immunosuppressants that in and of themselves do decrease the lifespan. Of course in the case of organ transplants, the benefit clearly outweighs the risks. Obviously this wouldn’t be the case with a uterine transplant because a uterous is not a neccessity for life.

I don’t know the risks of anti-rejection drugs to the fetus, but that could be easily looked up on the internet. However, organ transplant recipients are much more suceptable to bacterial and viral infections, as well as cancers. We deal with a few heart transplant patients in my husband’s cardiology practice, and obviously in the case of a heart transplant the risks outweigh the benefits.
 
We deal with a few heart transplant patients in my husband’s cardiology practice, and obviously in the case of a heart transplant the risks outweigh the benefits.
I just want to be clear on what you said here. Are you really saying that the risks of heart transplantation outweigh the benefits of such a procedure? Or did you mean to say that benefits outweigh the risks? I would think the latter would be more accurate.
 
I just want to be clear on what you said here. Are you really saying that the risks of heart transplantation outweigh the benefits of such a procedure? Or did you mean to say that benefits outweigh the risks? I would think the latter would be more accurate.
Whoops, I meant the opposite. A dyslexic moment for me, sorry.:o
 
Thank you, WenckebachCath. I have to agree with your analysis; as tempting as this option may be for many women it would dangerous and experimental.

I remember a friend who was so desperate to have another child that she had already suggested this option to her doctors.
:blessyou:
 
Its too late to look up a newspaper reference now, but wasn’t there a women that received an ovary from her twin?

I think she then had a baby.

I will have to look it up in the morning and post it here.
 
I’ve got a transplant. No one gave me any reason not to have a child, because of the immunosuppresants I take. On the other hand there are viruses out there, that if I caught I’ll have to take meds that either have a high risk of birth defects, or haven’t been fully studied yet to give a good enough conclusion. There could be other meds that might cause birth defects, espcially if you are carrying a baby, but I think there is a good chance they maybe able to be changed up. One could more easily end up having a high-risk pregnancy. I’m a guy, so no one really had to go into that with me.

But there is a good arguement for a transplant center as to why would they want to do a transplant for a person who doesn’t need it. Also given the inflation in health care, all the money for the transplant might have to come out of pocket, I doubt an insurance company will want to cover that, when they can barely break even for necassary treatment. Maybe they could go out of country, but I don’t know if it would ever be widespread in the US health care system. I think most would conclude that the risks are a lot higher, than the benifits.

As for effects of immunosuppresants on the fetus. Well the immunosuppresant part might not matter so much for the fetus, they really don’t have much of an immune system. It would suffer if the parent gets sick during a critical time. I know some of them can be toxic to the organs, and given the size of the fetuses organs that might really damage them. But there are also a lot, a lot of differnet meds that could be used for immunosuppresants. One of mine can be toxic, its still being studied for long term effects. (A lot of people have transplants, so there is a lot of research into better meds for it. A research corporation knows there are money in it if they make a better med.) My transplant center would switch that one to a different med.
 
One other thing I thought of is how are they going to get the uterus? I guess they probably won’t get a cadaver donor. I doubt that any organ procurement agency is going to spend their money one getting a recipient in the system, rather opt it for people who need the organs to live. I doubt that a lot of doctors in the US would really in good faith take a healthy uterus out of a person who doesn’t want it and wants to give it to someone. It can be tough enough asking someone for a kidney, while in End Stage Renal Failure, but to ask someone for their uterus, I don’t know you got me. I guess you wouldn’t want a uterus that has problems, either. LOL I guess there are some that go sperm shopping, are they going to go uterus shopping now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top