1069
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 24,975
- Reaction score
- 5,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I wanted, actually, to put this in "Breaking News"... I think it's wonderful and fascinating news.
But my guess is that the majority of the (predominantly young, predominantly male) members of this forum will not find it as fascinating or relevant as I do.
Uterus Transplant Would Offer Chance For Women To Bear Children
"Doctors at a New York hospital plan the first uterus transplant to allow women with defective or removed wombs to bear children, news reports said Monday. A cancer specialist, Dr. Giuseppe Del Priore, and gynecologist surgeon, Dr. Jeanetta Stega, of the New York Downtown Hospital, which is part of the New York-Presbyterian Health Care system, revealed steps that would lead to the first uterus transplant. He said it was a natural progression after the successful transplants of limbs and partial facial replacements.
"I believe it's technically possible to do," said Del Priore, the lead physician. He was quoted by the New York Post.
"If this is a passionate desire for a woman who's had surgical removal of a uterus, I would think this would be something she'd really want to pursue," said Julia Rowland, director of the National Cancer Institute's Office of Cancer Survivorship.
Rowland said, however, that the risks should be carefully weighed. Other scientists said the uterus transplant should be done first on animals to see whether they would produce healthy offsprings.
The Post said the news of the first uterus transplant has drawn different views. Thousands of women had become pregnant after receiving kidney, heart and other transplants, and advocates believe a uterus transplant would help women who strongly desire to have children.
News reports said the wombs would come from dead donors - the normal practice to obtain organs - and would be removed after the recipient gives birth to avoid the constant need of anti-rejection drugs.
>snip<
But the reports said doctors at the New York Downtown Hospital did a six-month experiment, which showed that wombs could be had from organ donors and they were screening for potential recipients."
link
The article goes on to say that the Ethics Committee of the New York hospital that is proposing the surgery has conditionally approved it; some other articles, however, are less encouraging and report that while the surgery is on the horizon, we should not look for it within the next ten years.
link
Transplanted organs are dangerous, and require routine administration of anti-rejection meds.
And true, a uterus is not, technically, a vital organ.
You can certainly live without one.
Is it worth the risk?
I think that's up to the recipients to decide.
Corneas are not "vital organs" either, yet cornea transplants have become routine, and have allowed many blind people to see.
Faces aren't vital, yet last year European doctors performed, successfully, the world's first face transplant.
Unlike the above transplants, the donor uterus will not become a permanent part of the recipient's body; it will be removed once she has conceived and given birth.
Anyway, I think it's cool.
I expect the Kristian™ contingent will have all sorts of negative feedback and dire predictions to share; I will refer them to Genesis 30:1, in which Rachel states, "Give me children, or else I die."
Are we really to interpret the Bible's message as being that God approves of concubinage and surrogacy, but would heartily condemn an infertile woman using a dead woman's donated uterus to gestate her own offspring?
But my guess is that the majority of the (predominantly young, predominantly male) members of this forum will not find it as fascinating or relevant as I do.
Uterus Transplant Would Offer Chance For Women To Bear Children
"Doctors at a New York hospital plan the first uterus transplant to allow women with defective or removed wombs to bear children, news reports said Monday. A cancer specialist, Dr. Giuseppe Del Priore, and gynecologist surgeon, Dr. Jeanetta Stega, of the New York Downtown Hospital, which is part of the New York-Presbyterian Health Care system, revealed steps that would lead to the first uterus transplant. He said it was a natural progression after the successful transplants of limbs and partial facial replacements.
"I believe it's technically possible to do," said Del Priore, the lead physician. He was quoted by the New York Post.
"If this is a passionate desire for a woman who's had surgical removal of a uterus, I would think this would be something she'd really want to pursue," said Julia Rowland, director of the National Cancer Institute's Office of Cancer Survivorship.
Rowland said, however, that the risks should be carefully weighed. Other scientists said the uterus transplant should be done first on animals to see whether they would produce healthy offsprings.
The Post said the news of the first uterus transplant has drawn different views. Thousands of women had become pregnant after receiving kidney, heart and other transplants, and advocates believe a uterus transplant would help women who strongly desire to have children.
News reports said the wombs would come from dead donors - the normal practice to obtain organs - and would be removed after the recipient gives birth to avoid the constant need of anti-rejection drugs.
>snip<
But the reports said doctors at the New York Downtown Hospital did a six-month experiment, which showed that wombs could be had from organ donors and they were screening for potential recipients."
link
The article goes on to say that the Ethics Committee of the New York hospital that is proposing the surgery has conditionally approved it; some other articles, however, are less encouraging and report that while the surgery is on the horizon, we should not look for it within the next ten years.
link
Transplanted organs are dangerous, and require routine administration of anti-rejection meds.
And true, a uterus is not, technically, a vital organ.
You can certainly live without one.
Is it worth the risk?
I think that's up to the recipients to decide.
Corneas are not "vital organs" either, yet cornea transplants have become routine, and have allowed many blind people to see.
Faces aren't vital, yet last year European doctors performed, successfully, the world's first face transplant.
Unlike the above transplants, the donor uterus will not become a permanent part of the recipient's body; it will be removed once she has conceived and given birth.
Anyway, I think it's cool.
I expect the Kristian™ contingent will have all sorts of negative feedback and dire predictions to share; I will refer them to Genesis 30:1, in which Rachel states, "Give me children, or else I die."
Are we really to interpret the Bible's message as being that God approves of concubinage and surrogacy, but would heartily condemn an infertile woman using a dead woman's donated uterus to gestate her own offspring?