Woman becomes first to give birth from transplanted womb

[Coriolis]

Not if the adoption laws are very strict. It took my friend's parents 7 years to adopt her and her twin brother even though the mother couldn't conceive due to endometriosis. In that case, wouldn't it faster just to get a loan from the bank? I agree with you if it were in the U.S ('cause laws are more reasonable there, didn't take my aunt very long to adopt) however not every country is as lenient when it comes to adoption.

That is an unfortunate situation. Medical heroics, however, are not the solution to misguided laws and regulations.

By that line of reasoning anyone who doesn't already have biological children of their own should adopt. There are more than enough kids without parents to fulfill the 'supply'.

Which is not to say that anyone should adopt either. A rigorous cost/benefit analysis would almost certainly show that anyone with greater-than-poverty-line income stands nothing to gain from having children. Children are a financial, emotional and physical drain on their parents.

Anyone who cannot have biological children should consider adoption. If they don't want children at all, then infertility is not a problem.

Once the procedure is standardized, I would expect costs to drop. For women who want to have their own kids or transwomen who were not born with a uterus, it also offers the possibility for something that they might have once thought was beyond their grasp. And knowledge transfers; the knowledge gained from this exercise will be applied to other organs and other understandings that will enable progress in other areas, this is merely an appliction of a particular technology.

I agree that the real benefit comes from the knowledge gained, and our ability to apply it to situations that do deal with life and death, or the ability to function independently in daily life.

The financial cost benefit is one way to view things but not the only way, especially among human beings who are more than just budget sheets. It might not be cost-effective to put someone through various cancer treatments or other forms of medical treatment to keep them alive, but we do it anyway -- why? Or to work on creating limbs that look human for amputees, if the robotic looking limb operates just as fine or better, but we do -- why? Because people aren't just quantifiable collections of attributes and data, we view them as human beings with relationships and connections and dreams and sorrows. There's a human component to their experience.

There is another dimension to the cost/benefit analysis, specifically what else one can do with $180K. This amount of money could provide life-saving or disability mitigating procedures for several people. There is a human component to their need as well. I can sympathize with someone's desire to have a biological child, but only to a point. It seems almost selfish to value the act of giving birth over a lifetime of raising a child to be happy and independent, whether biological, adopted, or fostered.

 

[93JC]

Anyone who cannot have biological children should consider adoption. If they don't want children at all, then infertility is not a problem.

Infertility is a , so quit using it. You said "there is no shortage of children already born who need parents," therefore everyone who is considering having children should adopt.

There is another dimension to the cost/benefit analysis, specifically what else one can do with $180K. This amount of money could provide life-saving or disability mitigating procedures for several people.

You keep using "cost/benefit analysis" as your argument, but you're not following it all the way through. Your argument is that infertile women born without uteruses shouldn't waste $180,000 on a uterus transplant because there are "better things" to do with $180,000, but "life-saving or disability-mitigating procedures" sure as hell isn't one. Oh no sir. Cost/benefit analysis would show us that the rest of us are better off to just let those sick, disabled people die. They're a burden on us. An inordinate amount of health care spending is wasted on keeping chronically ill patients alive.

And what about doing a cost/benefit analysis on the entire adoption system? Spending billions on social services to take care of kids whose parents can't or won't is a huge waste of money, given what we'll get in return. We'll collectively spend much much more on these kids than they'll ever put back in our economy.

It's not all about dollars and cents. You can call these parents 'selfish' if you want, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You're just as selfish. Believe me, we all are.

There is a human component to their need as well. I can sympathize with someone's desire to have a biological child, but only to a point. It seems almost selfish to value the act of giving birth over a lifetime of raising a child to be happy and independent, whether biological, adopted, or fostered.

You know what's really selfish? People who have kids and are not willing to or are incapable of raising them. Incredibly selfish. We spend a hell of a lot more than $180,000 on foster programs and orphanages. Maybe when you're done chastising this Swedish couple you'll move on to chastising deadbeat parents.

 

[Coriolis]

Infertility is a , so quit using it. You said "there is no shortage of children already born who need parents," therefore everyone who is considering having children should adopt.

You keep using "cost/benefit analysis" as your argument, but you're not following it all the way through. Your argument is that infertile women born without uteruses shouldn't waste $180,000 on a uterus transplant because there are "better things" to do with $180,000, but "life-saving or disability-mitigating procedures" sure as hell isn't one. Oh no sir. Cost/benefit analysis would show us that the rest of us are better off to just let those sick, disabled people die. They're a burden on us. An inordinate amount of health care spending is wasted on keeping chronically ill patients alive.

And what about doing a cost/benefit analysis on the entire adoption system? Spending billions on social services to take care of kids whose parents can't or won't is a huge waste of money, given what we'll get in return. We'll collectively spend much much more on these kids than they'll ever put back in our economy.

It's not all about dollars and cents. You can call these parents 'selfish' if you want, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You're just as selfish. Believe me, we all are.

You know what's really selfish? People who have kids and are not willing to or are incapable of raising them. Incredibly selfish. We spend a hell of a lot more than $180,000 on foster programs and orphanages. Maybe when you're done chastising this Swedish couple you'll move on to chastising deadbeat parents.

You have raised several important points:

• The large number of children awaiting adoption
• How medical resources are allocated
• Parents who are unable or unwilling to support their own children

I am not going to comment in detail on these, since they are off-topic in this thread.

My comments pertain specifically to womb transplants, as described in the OP. I do not need to solve the broader adoption problem to observe that childless couples who want a child would do better to adopt. Nor do I need to sort out our mixed up medical priorities to observe that there are much more productive uses for $180K than a womb transplant. There are obviously less productive medical uses as well, for those who choose to focus on them. Finally, I don't see how womb transplants address the issue of parents failing to support their children. Steering infertile couples to adoption would at least take care of some of these unwanted children.

If you wish to delve more deeply into one of the topics listed above, you can start a new thread.

 

[93JC]

I do not need to solve the broader adoption problem to observe that childless couples who want a child would do better to adopt.

Prove it.

Nor do I need to sort out our mixed up medical priorities to observe that there are much more productive uses for $180K than a womb transplant.

Prove it.

 

[PeaceBaby]

In January, one of the patients underwent in-vitro fertilization treatment that resulted in an embryo being transferred to her new womb. The donated womb came from the woman’s own mother, so the baby is also the first born to a woman using the same womb from which she emerged herself.

Hmm this contradicts other news sites where I've read about this story. The donor was a family friend, not the mother.

$180K for a womb transplant so someone can have a baby, while there is no shortage of children already born who need parents. I can appreciate this as a scientific achievement, but in practical terms, it fails any sort of cost/benefit analysis.

It seems that your statement places an obligation to adopt on those who are infertile. How does being infertile make a person ineligible to try to have biological children? If there is "no shortage" of children who need parents (as you say), shouldn't all viable adults regardless of fertility look towards adopting a child in order to ensure that all children are parented and well-cared for? How does fertility status absolve a person of responsibility to care for this slew of children or make another more obligated to do so?

Let's say we all adopt a child. With this surplus of unwanted children duly taken care of, any judgement on the value of this procedure would be rendered irrelevant to those who would wish to undergo the process (according to your statement above).

 

[Coriolis]

It seems that your statement places an obligation to adopt on those who are infertile. How does being infertile make a person ineligible to try to have biological children? If there is "no shortage" of children who need parents (as you say), shouldn't all viable adults regardless of fertility look towards adopting a child in order to ensure that all children are parented and well-cared for? How does fertility status absolve a person of responsibility to care for this slew of children or make another more obligated to do so?

Let's say we all adopt a child. With this surplus of unwanted children duly taken care of, any judgement on the value of this procedure would be rendered irrelevant to those who would wish to undergo the process (according to your statement above).

Not at all. The resources spent on a transplant could still be spent to better effect. There is no obligation to adopt placed on anyone. Infertile couples (or fertile ones, for that matter) are free to remain childless. It goes partly to the true desires of a couple who would choose a transplant. What do they really want? To raise a child and have the experience of being parents, or to experience pregnancy? If experiencing pregnancy itself is the more important consideration, perhaps they should be surrogates instead.

My advice to adopt is based on getting the greatest good for the resources expended: infertile couple gets child; unwanted child gets caring parents; medical resources get spent saving several lives or livelihoods. This is much less a moral injunction than an observation of cause and effect. Yes, it is based on values, specifically what constitutes the greatest good. Affording someone the experience of pregnancy seems a lesser good relative to saving a life or correcting a disability so someone can live independently and productively.

Prove it.

The lack of direct connection between the first and the second part of each statement is self-evident. It would be like proving I don't need to become a gourmet cook to pick out a kitchen appliance.

 

[Riva]

$180K for a womb transplant so someone can have a baby, while there is no shortage of children already born who need parents. I can appreciate this as a scientific achievement, but in practical terms, it fails any sort of cost/benefit analysis.

Not really. There is a difference in having/conceiving one's own child and adopting. I am not saying that parents with adopted children love their children less.

Also humans like fo procreate for many reasons. Including passing their own genes to a future generation. This could result in that.

 

[Ingrid in grids]

There is a babushka joke in here somewhere but I can't quite get to it.

 

[93JC]

The lack of direct connection between the first and the second part of each statement is self-evident. It would be like proving I don't need to become a gourmet cook to pick out a kitchen appliance.

Ugh, your avoidance manoeuvres are crap.

You said "childless couples who want a child would do better to adopt." I said prove it. Defend your position. Explain it to us. Explain the pros and cons and explain how the pros outweigh the cons.

 

[Chthonic]

As someone who is naturally infertile I find this kind of thing a bit perplexing. Yes I can sympathise with the desire for something that the body will not give. Everyone can, how many of us have experienced a longing for something we are just not physically equipped for? But I'm not sure I really approve of this kind of high handed tinkering when there are other solutions that will give something back (apart from a science prize for frankenchild of the year.) Adoption being one of those options that gives back to a needy child.

Are we in that desperate need of procreation that we simply must use vast resources, money and surgical tinkering to achieve such ends? People everywhere in the world have to accept limitations on their body they wish were not there. It's part of life. I would like to see these resources go towards something able to improve the lives of a vast number of people (like a cure for AIDs) rather than a privileged few. Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we automatically should.

 

[chubber]

As someone who is naturally infertile I find this kind of thing a bit perplexing. Yes I can sympathise with the desire for something that the body will not give. Everyone can, how many of us have experienced a longing for something we are just not physically equipped for? But I'm not sure I really approve of this kind of high handed tinkering when there are other solutions that will give something back (apart from a science prize for frankenchild of the year.) Adoption being one of those options that gives back to a needy child.

Are we in that desperate need of procreation that we simply must use vast resources, money and surgical tinkering to achieve such ends? People everywhere in the world have to accept limitations on their body they wish were not there. It's part of life. I would like to see these resources go towards something able to improve the lives of a vast number of people (like a cure for AIDs) rather than a privileged few. Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we automatically should.

I have to wonder what natural infertile means.