Uterine Transplants

Any (non-political, non-religious) thoughts others may have on this medical advancement??.

In less than a decade from the first live birth from a uterus transplant in Sweden, in 2014, uterus transplants seem set to become a mainstream procedure, with an estimated 90 uterus transplants carried out around the world as of end-2021, resulting in the birth of some 50 children. As of July 2022, there have been more than 100 uterus transplants performed worldwide, and more than a third have been done in the United States. So far, all transplants and births have been performed on women.

Still, the procedure is not a simple one. Before a uterine transplant, the recipient must take anti-rejection drugs so her body accepts the new organ. Donors have been both cadavers and live women. Before a uterine transplant, the recipient must take anti-rejection drugs so her body accepts the new organ.

https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/09/15/uterus-transplants-are-already-a-reality-what-does-it-mean-for-transgender-women-getting-p

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/popularizing-uterus-transplants-into-biological-males/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6821981/

I think its great. So I take it that the “live” donor is undergoing reassignment the other direction?

I think its great. So I take it that the “live” donor is undergoing reassignment the other direction?

Possible - but they didn't mention that in the article from Penn Medicine:

"Similar to liver and kidney donation, uterus donors can be deceased or living, but as with most transplants, “there’s a discrepancy between supply and demand. A living uterus donor gives her uterus for the purpose of transplantation to a female recipient. Potential living donors are women between 30 and 50 years of age who have completed their child bearing and are in generally good health.”

Wasn't clear to me if they harvest an egg from the donor or recipient - I suspect the participant they are referring to below is the recipient.

"All participants undergo IVF (in vitro fertilization) to retrieve and then fertilize their eggs with sperm in order to create embryos. About six months after a successful transplant, a single embryo will be implanted in the uterus. If that leads to a successful pregnancy, the baby will be delivered via C-section because women with UFI cannot delivery vaginally."

Wow.

Just… wow.

I would think the risk for abruption would be super high, too, in addition to rejection. But with more study/practice, just like they do with everything else, medicine will learn how to minimize that as much as possible too.

I may be missing something but had my wife needed a surrogate to have our family it wouldn't have changed anything to how loved they are and our bond. Most transplants and the sequelae of it are to save/ prolong life. The risk to transplant a uterus, organ not vital to your being is hard to justify.

Is the huge risk medically justified? Its down to each individual person I guess but had it been a thing in the years I practiced I would certainly not have been promoting it.

The risk to transplant a uterus, organ not vital to your being is hard to justify.

It’s not something I completely understand, as my uterus has served me well, that’s true.

However, for someone unable to carry for one reason or another - while it may not seem to us on the outside to be vital to their being - it would be.

It would also be vital to the child born from that uterus. You or I may make the argument that a surrogate or an adoption is always possible, but who knows the motivators that someone desperate to carry their own child in their own body would have… but that parent?

Indeed but the logic falls down when it wasn't their uterus. However we agree it would have to be deeply personal thing

Afterthought: This could be applicable to the LGBTQ, Gay community as well as those with an interest in Birthing Fetishes.

The primary purpose(s) of uterine transplants is to 1) allow someone to experience a pregnancy who otherwise can’t, 2) allow a hetero to conceive naturally (or close to naturally) and preserve one or both of their “genes” without the use of a surrogate. Surrogates are hard to find, expensive and even illegal in some states (at least in Washington). Adoption is more viable option, but you give up propagating your own genes.

It’s expensive. Unclear what insurance will cover, but the surgical expense would easily exceed $100K. Risk is a factor: risk associated with any surgery and sedation; risk of rejection (anti-rejection drugs are a must for however long the transplant is in place); risk of not conceiving; risk of not being successful in carrying a child to term; risk of childbirth complications, etc. There are three surgeries involved: the transplant, the birth (cesarean, so far vaginal isn’t an option), and the eventual removal of the uterus to eliminate potential risk of long-term anti-rejection drugs.

It would take a lot of motivation to choose this route to experience a pregnancy (without a natural delivery) and to preserve your genes.

For whoever goes this route, there has to be significant counseling and assessment of their probability of success: physical, emotional, financial, and parenting skills. The ethical, legal, financial hurdles are enormous. Would this procedure only be available to an elite group able who can afford the procedure(s) and child care? Seems that would be considered discrimination against a huge percentage of population of limited income and other social classes. Then would the government step in and provide “equity” and fund this (read your and my $$) for certain candidates??

This potentially could give gay couples the experience of birthing and raising a child with at least one or the others partners genes. Would a lot of men want to do this simply for the pregnancy experience? Would the male half of a hetero couple who wants to experience pregnancy be eligible?

Medical advancement often opens a pandora’s box of questions which need to be addressed.

Is this just another science project – look what I can do; ground work for other transplants etc.? Or is it simply break through medicine that opens doors for those who can’t become pregnant and want to experience it – women, men, transgender etc. which adds another dimension to the social implications as well.

1. On China and Japan are close to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_womb

2. Almost every hight developed countries have huge problem with seniors and very low baby borns. Especially that now inferiority are global issue and on some data are even said that 30-40% of society have issue with that problem-pullutions and old age where ppls tried to have baby.

3. You didn't understand how very intense it's procedure and to get any transplantation you need even 10 biological aspects same as giver.

4. Ofc many questions around ethical issues-on Europe many countries didnt allow surrogates

In the case of the uterus, it is an organ that is temporarily implanted for one or two pregnancies and is eventually removed.

@Rigel On numerous countries are still traditional thinking. Looks like male have good work and they are both over 30 and couldn't get own baby. So from some reason I'd suspect that will be a open way for white east-european/Australian etc. to give legacy-baby. Especially that more women's have issues like gyno cancers. And thinking that LGBT or trans get east way to uterus are failed way of thinking.

I addressed this topic in 2023 specifically in the case of women without a functioning uterus (French-speaking audience, for those interested). See the two links :

Zity : - https://fr.zity.biz/index.php?mx=forum;ox=display;msg=1340472

"LaCroix" : - https://fr.zity.biz/gallery/image/261884