Saturday, April 07, 2007


Sorry just the thought of this is disgusting. Oh here dear sister, I am done with my uterus. You can use it now. You too can have babies with it. Something about this is just EWWWEEEEEE. Sorry for the pun folks. Seriously, are we as a society that desparate for infants? Will adoption agencies and attorneys control this as well? Or will it be surrogacy clinics that will handle this? Is this even ethical? I can see some real unethical complications coming from this type of thing. Uterus now for sale. It will be the only thing that will be auctioned to the highest bidder. Just like adoption is.

Could Wombs Of Dead Donors Be Transplanted?

Wednesday, 4th April 2007, 07:56

Wombs from dead donors could be transplanted into women to restore their fertility. Until now surrogacy or adoption have been the only options for women who want children but have had a hysterectomy or have an infertile womb. However, scientists have now managed to produce pregnancies in wombs transplanted into four sheep - bringing human ops a step closer. The animal transplants were autologous – that is, the uteruses were put back into the same sheep – but they are an important proof of principle, given the complexity of the blood supply to the uterus and the growth it undergoes during pregnancy.Dr Mats Brannstrom, of the Sahlgrenska Academy in Gothenburg, Sweden, and his colleagues now plan to carry out a uterus swap between two ewes.If the technique can be adapted to humans, it could give some women their only chance of becoming pregnant, reports New Scientist.Surgeons at New York Downtown Hospital recently announced last year that they had received approval from the hospital's review board to transplant a uterus into a woman and were interviewing potential candidates.But Dr Brannstrom's work suggests there may be still some way to go before such a transplant is safe – of the 14 ewes that had transplants, seven had to be killed after developing complications.About 15 per cent of all couples are infertile. Most causes can be treated by in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and sperm injection (ICSI).Yet for women who have healthy ovaries, but have had a hysterectomy or uterus problems caused by injury or congenital conditions, a transplant is their only hope of carrying a child of their own. At the moment, they can choose IVF surrogacy, where their egg and their partner's sperm can be used, but the baby carried by another woman. Technically, this is straightforward but it may not always be suitable for couples. But a womb transplant would have several advantages over surrogacy, according to Dr Brannstrom.He said: "If you put your embryo in another woman you give up control and you do not know if she might be smoking or taking drugs."He said the best donors for womb transplants would be older sisters or mothers, to minimise the chances of rejection.The womb could be removed after having children, so that the recipient did not have to take immunosuppressant drugs for life


Ungrateful Little Bastard said...


WombMart. Gross

"of the 14 ewes that had transplants, seven had to be killed after developing complications."


Erin said...

OH MY GOSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Black market wombs. Kids who NEVER have a chance at knowing their genetic history. Kids who will never be told the truth about how they came to be. That seems to me where this is going to go.

Why does it seem that the desires of the grown ups always win, no matter how evil the plot.

MomEtc. said...

I've had a hysterectomy and while I have no desire to replace my uterus, I would like to see this option someday for other women, when the procedure is safe.

Of course, like anything else, it needs to be controlled. People should not be exploited to benefit someone else's abililty to become fertile again. Certainly the uterus of a dying woman could be donated just as her other organs would be if she's an organ donor.

I'm always puzzled by people opposing a procedure like this, who simultaneously wish to reduce adoption. Wouldn't the success of this procedure reduce adoption?

Note that when I talk about the transplant of a uterus I am NOT talking about the transplant and usage of the donor's ovaries. I think some people have that confused.

The Voyage


It is not so much about adoption with this issue. It is messing with mother nature. I don't like the idea of women somewhere or someplace being used in some way to get their uterus. I am looking at this from a woman's point of view. Yes it could reduce adoption. I worry about those that would feel entitled to someone else's body parts. We already have a sector that believe that they are entitled to another woman's child. I am not saying all but a few. Our society views women as property same as children.

MomEtc. said...

Yes, absolutely there are people who would feel entitled to someone else's body parts, including a woman's uterus. I would never want to see a woman selling her uterus to feed her children and so on. That should never be legal. But, the article specifically talks about dead donors. That I have no qualms with.

joyceregina said...

Appalling! Why not just auction off your damn soul.

Ungrateful Little Bastard said...

I think what causes me to have the immediate negative reaction to it is the experience of a friend of mine who has donated organs, and the recurring hospitalizations and medications he needs to take to prevent his body rejecting them. He takes medication daily, and in the time I've known him he's needed to return to Sloan twice for extended (3 weeks) stays for high fevers and internal infections.

He endures this because these donations saved his life, but I don't see any lifesaving opportunity for a uterus. I'm troubled about research and funding dollars going towards this... how can a woman be pregnant while taking anti-rejection drugs? I know I don't know a lot about it so I'm writing from emotion here, but it troubles me. Also, the animal experimentation and subsequent deaths of these ewes.