Woman becomes first to give birth from transplanted womb

[Vasilisa]

Woman becomes first to give birth from transplanted womb — using one donated from her own mother
Rebecca Smith
October 3, 2014
The Telegraph

Excerpt:
LONDON — The world’s first birth from a transplanted womb was announced Friday.

Details of the birth are being closely guarded, but it is believed it took place in Sweden where surgeons have performed pioneering surgery.

Fertility experts in Britain said they were preparing to carry out a similar procedure in this country next year. It could help 14,000 British women carry their own child.

The breakthrough was reported by The Lancet medical journal on its website last night. It is thought the birth occurred within the last month after doctors transplanted wombs into several women who had a rare genetic condition that meant they were born without their own womb.

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.

< full story >

 

[Coriolis]

$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.

 

[á´…eparted]

$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.

Depends on who you ask. Some people would absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt consider it worth it.

 

[Coriolis]

Depends on who you ask. Some people would absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt consider it worth it.

No doubt. That doesn't make it a reasonable choice. The world is full of people who don't make rational decisions, and whose priorities defy logic.

 

[á´…eparted]

No doubt. That doesn't make it a reasonable choice. The world is full of people who don't make rational decisions, and whose priorities defy logic.

Yes I agree. I don't think that just because it's irrational/illogical that it devalues it though.

 

[Coriolis]

Yes I agree. I don't think that just because it's irrational/illogical that it devalues it though.

What value does it have then? All I see is selfishness and waste. Yes, the initial test subjects did a valuable service for science in making it possible to test the hypothesis that this was possible and to demonstrate that and how it could be done. In what circumstances, however, does this choice justify the cost?

 

[prplchknz]

What value does it have then? All I see is selfishness and waste. Yes, the initial test subjects did a valuable service for science in making it possible to test the hypothesis that this was possible and to demonstrate that and how it could be done. In what circumstances, however, does this choice justify the cost?

in a world where 95% of the population has been wiped out and the only people left of child bearing age don't have a working womb.

 

[Oaky]

Is this a possibility on men? May I have the possibility to become pregnant in the near future?

 

[prplchknz]

Is this a possibility on men? May I have the possibility to become pregnant in the near future?

how would it come out? i mean ok c-section, but what if it tried to birth itself before your c-section it could die

 

[Oaky]

how would it come out? i mean ok c-section, but what if it tried to birth itself before your c-section it could die

Is this thought for a gender change? Or a semi-gender change? Or you could like make a hole in the belly. Ah, the complications. This is not yet for present times.

 

[á´…eparted]

What value does it have then? All I see is selfishness and waste. Yes, the initial test subjects did a valuable service for science in making it possible to test the hypothesis that this was possible and to demonstrate that and how it could be done. In what circumstances, however, does this choice justify the cost?

Some people want a child that is biologically theirs, and want to conceive it on their own. To you it is selfish and a waste, but to them it is not, and that is the distinction. I am not referring to universal value, but the value to an individual their family. Those things are not dictated by the world around them.

Again it is a personal value. If a couple or family that can not have a child under normal circumstances, and wants to conceive a child in their own womb, and they feel it is worth $180,000, then that is their prerogative. It is up to the individual to justify the cost.

 

[Coriolis]

Again it is a personal value. If a couple or family that can not have a child under normal circumstances, and wants to conceive a child in their own womb, and they feel it is worth $180,000, then that is their prerogative. It is up to the individual to justify the cost.

As long as they are wealthy enough to afford it. apparently poor people do not have the luxury of this sort of personal values.

 

[prplchknz]

^^ I wouldn't be too concerned about the poor in this situation, some bleeding heart non-profit will find away for them to also have kids. that being said it's expensive to adopt as well and raise kids apparently so if they're poor like eating out of the trash can poor is it even a good idea for them to have kids to begin with?

 

[Coriolis]

^^ I wouldn't be too concerned about the poor in this situation, some bleeding heart non-profit will find away for them to also have kids. that being said it's expensive to adopt as well and raise kids apparently so if they're poor like eating out of the trash can poor is it even a good idea for them to have kids to begin with?

You don't have to be that poor to lack $180K for surgery (and more for follow-up meds and treatment) to have a biological child. Plenty of people of more modest means have the wherewithal to raise a child or two. If they are unable to conceive naturally, adoption makes more sense.

You are right that adoption is expensive, too, but not nearly as expensive. Still, the expense is an unfortunate barrier to many families who might be able to raise an unwanted child, but that is another topic for another thread.

 

[prplchknz]

You don't have to be that poor to lack $180K for surgery (and more for follow-up meds and treatment) to have a biological child. Plenty of people of more modest means have the wherewithal to raise a child or two. If they are unable to conceive naturally, adoption makes more sense.

You are right that adoption is expensive, too, but not nearly as expensive. Still, the expense is an unfortunate barrier to many families who might be able to raise an unwanted child, but that is another topic for another thread.

I agree. But that being said the idea of me having kids disgusts and horrify me, I don't get those "feelings" when they're around which makes me think I'd not be a good mother. like me being around a child the emotions i get is the same as an old shoe, ranging from nothing to annoyed if i just tripped over it. I do think there needs to be adoption reform tbh but yes another thread.

 

[Raffaella]

it fails any sort of cost/benefit analysis.

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.

 

[Totenkindly]

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.

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.

Granted, the womb issue is a bit different because it's not "life or death," but it can definitely impact quality of life and/or give some woman whose womb was damaged/missing from events out of her control to have the opportunity to give birth. Not everyone can or will want to (or even be suitable for) a womb transplant, which has its own issues.

There are also children who need adopted, and if parents feel emotionally that they can handle that with its own pressures, then they can do that as well. But yes, as an adoptive parent, there are stresses that come with that and alot of headache and legal cost.

 

[indra]

$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.

Someone woulda paid millions for my fifty inch LED a few decades ago.

Yaw mean?

 

[93JC]

$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.

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.

 

[Calliope]

Another added cost to the whole thing is the medication that the woman needs to keep her body from rejecting the womb.
I read another article about this and it said that the couple is deciding now if they want another child, because if not, then the womb will have to be removed so she can come off the medication.
Unless the uterus comes from a very close family member then this will be an issue for every transplant.

Is this a possibility on men? May I have the possibility to become pregnant in the near future?

Even if it were possible, the child would belong to only one person in the homosexual relationship. Well, as of now that's the case.

There was a study a few years ago (2010) where viable offspring were produced from two male mice using IPSCs--but that's a different topic and years away from even the possibility of it being applied to humans.