Uterus Transplants

  • Thread starter Thread starter rayne100
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rayne100 said:
Just thought this was interesting:
cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/01/15/uterus.transplant.ap/index.html
Click to expand...
I’ve been reading about this also. Really think it is one more sign of our “get what I want, when I want it” mentality. I do understand that there is heartbreak when a young woman needs a hysterectomy. But the idea that she then has some kind of “right” to experience preganacy that this medical procedure will provide, seems wrong to me.

The goal of pregnancy is to have a child–not just to be pregnant. So adoption still remains the perfect solution for those couple who want children but can’t conceive or bear their own biological children.
 
I feel this is a slippery slope, to where, I have no idea. I just don’t have a good feeling about it.

Another thought I had about this is our society talks out of both sides of their mouths. On one hand they say kill babies if you don’t want them, and on the other do everything humanly possible to have babies…if you want them. How ironic.
 
Definitely a slippery slope.
On it’s own, I think it’s overall a good thing. We replace organs all the time in order to help people. But the fact that the uterus would be discarded after being used for a pregnancy seems disrespectful to all involved.
I wonder what the morality of a procedure like this would be?
Malia
 
I think the moral problem could come in when it’s tried on humans. How many failed pregnancies (i.e. dead babies) will it take to get this procedure right? I can’t imagine that a transplanted uterus wouldn’t = high risk pregnancy.
 
masondoggy said:
I think the moral problem could come in when it’s tried on humans. How many failed pregnancies (i.e. dead babies) will it take to get this procedure right? I can’t imagine that a transplanted uterus wouldn’t = high risk pregnancy.
Click to expand...
But a high risk pregnancy isn’t itself a moral no-no. There are women with conditions that would make their pregnancies high risk but if they do become pregnant they have not sinned…
very slippery slope…
malia
 
In regards to the reason they would remove it after having a child is the fact that people who recieve organ donations must be on immuno suppressant drugs their whole life (since the body recognizes the donated organ as foreign and tries to eliminate it). Being on immunosupressant drugs puts you at great risk from dying from diseases that people normally can fend off. I think the main moral issue is based on the safety of such a procedure. Lets say theoretically, a woman gets an implanted womb and achieves pregnancy through natural means. Then after having the baby, the uterus is removed so the woman can go off the immunosupressant drugs. I do not think church teaching would say this is in itself bad. It more comes from the safety risks of trying to carry a pregnancy to term and the integrity of the organ to handle a pregnancy. Sure people can take risks, but some are just dumb and to place one’s life at such a great risk just so one can be pregnant sounds more irresponsible (I do not include people who have high risk pregnancies, they are a seperate moral consideration due to different circumstances) and dangerous than it is worth.
 
DailyBread said:
Then after having the baby, the uterus is removed so the woman can go off the immunosupressant drugs. I do not think church teaching would say this is in itself bad.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure about that. Right now, if my uterus was unhealthy and needed to be removed, the Church would be ok with that. But, in the surgery case, we know ahead of time that it would have to be removed. I don’t know how moral that would be (getting a uterus for the sake of bearing a child and then throwing our fertilty away when we’re done).
 
Feanaro_s_Wife said:
I’m not sure about that. Right now, if my uterus was unhealthy and needed to be removed, the Church would be ok with that. But, in the surgery case, we know ahead of time that it would have to be removed. I don’t know how moral that would be (getting a uterus for the sake of bearing a child and then throwing our fertilty away when we’re done).
Click to expand...
I agree. It’s akin to having one’s tubes tied. The woman decides when to end her fertility, not God.
 
Feanaro_s_Wife said:
very slippery slope…

malia
Click to expand...
How long before they decide that a man should have a baby? Seems possible, transplant the uterus, use invirto, c-section . . .

Just because it can be done doesn’t mean it should be done. And I understand where these women are coming from, I’ve never experienced a pregnancy and never will . . . but I realize having a baby is not all about me.
 
wisdom_3_5 said:
How long before they decide that a man should have a baby? Seems possible, transplant the uterus, use invirto, c-section . . .

Just because it can be done doesn’t mean it should be done. And I understand where these women are coming from, I’ve never experienced a pregnancy and never will . . . but I realize having a baby is not all about me.
Click to expand...
**Excellent points! Obviously it’s an issue that will need tons of study and investigation before being allowed (or not). Too bad that mainstream society won’t care about the morality of the issue though…men having babies…yup, I can see it now…😦 **
malia
 
I think some good points were made and I do not have all the answers, but to keep the discussion going, I agree that man cannot start using technology to start artificially creating life outside God’s intended purpose, but there are licit means of assisting women in getting pregnant because they do not replace the marriage act, only facilitate it and this is done medically. Women have been given fallopian tubes because they have scarred ones so they can concieve normally. Usually the litmus test for fertility treatments is whether the treatment replaces the marriage act which in this case it wouldn’t from what appears in the article. In regards to removing the uterus afterwards (which no one is saying is necessary to have the procedure done, you could leave it in), one could argue that long term use of steriods to inhibit immune response is itself not healthy becasue of the long term side effects. Similarly, certain women who have difficulty ovulating are given drugs to help ovulate so that they can get pregnant, but dont keep on taking them all their life. Yes, that means they may have one child and that is it. They stopped the treatment (which made them fertile) because long term use of it is dangerous just like the uterus organ donation. The reason for removing the uterus is not from the desire to end one’s fertility same as ending the fertility drugs. The morality of this issue is not resolved though I agree and even if my arguement makes sense, I still would think this procedure is dangerous for other reasons.
 
I don’t know if that’d be covered by insurance. Good luck with those bills!
 
In itself, the transplant is a very wonderful thing… giving women who previously thought they were unable to bear children the chance to do just that. However, no ethical issue is so clear cut. As previous posters have said, there is a significant danger to both the mother and the baby of whatever pregnancy may or may not occur. Perhaps the danger is SO high that getting a uterus transplant would be unwise and imprudent.

But I wonder why women would want to get a transplant so bad? Is this another case of “possessiveness” on the part of American women, a symptom of the materialistic culture in which we live? Why don’t women have a strong desire to adopt?

Yes, I understand that women have a natural longing to reproduce and have babies. (Yay for babies!) But something tells me that if a woman has no uterus, or a defective uterus – making her otherwise infertile – adoption should be a very viable option! Nine months of pregnancy don’t make a child “yours.” The child is always God’s creation. Just like all the other children waiting to be adopted, they need homes in which to learn, grow, and play.

All I am saying is that adoption is a more viable and more prudent decision for infertile women wanting to raise a child. Does anyone agree with me?
 
Zahmir said:
All I am saying is that adoption is a more viable and more prudent decision for infertile women wanting to raise a child. Does anyone agree with me?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I just looked it up and there are 118,000 foster children awaiting adoption in the US, all ages from infants to teens. Teenagers also often desperately want a family to belong to, as well as the little ones.
I can’t imagine going through costly and risky procedures to experience a pregnancy when all these children are waiting. Pregnancy was not such a treat, believe me!
I have two biological kids and two adopted kids, and they are all mine – just as lovable and challenging.
I wonder if each Christian church facilitated the adoption of one child, if we couldn’t reduce the number of foster children; except that more enter the system all the time.
 
This topic came up on the Drew Mariani show the other day, and Father Tad Pacholczyk was weighing in his opinion. The thing he brought up which I found interesting is that he said transplanting a kidney and transplanting a uterus are arguably two different things. In the first case, we would presume that the kidney transplant is a life saving measure, whereas the uterine transplant is a completely elective procedure. This calls to question whether or not doing such a thing would be morally permissable.

Obviously, the Church would needs time to weigh in on this kind of thing, but I think the fact that when first presented with the idea it makes us uncomfortable, that could/should be a sign that all may not be right. The thought of using someone else’s womb seems so different to me somehow than using someone else’s kidneys…even if I can’t quite articulate why that is.
 
I don’t know if the danger would be that high. Unhealthy women would should be screened out, which makes the usual transplant an opposite case, in that often times a person who gets a transplant is not healthy and it’s easier for problems to occur. If their is any rejection, it can be taken out right away. The biggest problem would seem to be that of a normal surgery. As far as the meds, I think most could be avoided. Steriods could probably be avoided, because of the new immunosuppresant drugs. I haven’t heard of bad effects on the baby for current immunosuppresant drugs, except for tacrolimus (Prograf) which hasn’t been fully studied to say if it is safe for pregnancy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top