Is this a good idea?

[HassleCat]

I'm reading the Seattle Times, and they have an article by Denise Grady of the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/health/uterus-transplants-may-soon-help-some-infertile-women-in-the-us-become-pregnant.html?_r=0

It explains how uterus transplants will begin. The will take the uterus of a recently deceased woman, and put it into a woman who doesn't have a uterus. It is described as very risky, since the developing fetus will be exposed to the anti-rejection drugs the mother must take. It must be enormously expensive, although I don't see any mention of that, ad it doesn't say anything about insurance coverage. Some medical ethics guy from John Hopkins say it's OK, and they're already doing them in Sweden.

I have one question. Is this a symptom, or a cause, of our broken medical system? Many low income women cannot get adequate prenatal care, but we devote enormous resources to making sure women with money can have children. Is it simply a question of making money? It's kind of like the old, "If we can send a man to the moon..." If we can transplant a uterus, we can ensure adequate prenatal and pediatric care for low income families. Or maybe we can't. I don't know.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. When I first heard of this I thought...

as pure science it's a great idea and might lead to other understandings and breakthroughs.

But, there's a certain insanity going on here-- most of our efforts in the recent past have been to reduce fertility, but now we're reducing birth control and abortion availability and spending what looks like millions to increase it for a small select group of women.

[SheilaT]

2. That's the sort of thing that bothers me tremendously.

Perhaps there have been enough women who've had other organ transplants, been on the anti-rejection drugs, and gone on to have successful pregnancies that we know what kind of effect those drugs will have on the developing fetus.

I am someone who had two children, born healthy and whole, without any medical intervention, and so it's all too easy for me to say to some other women, "Don't try so hard, accept not having babies of your own." But since I've never been in that position, I'm not sure I have the right to say that.

This research is neither a symptom nor a cause of our broken medical system. It stands outside the brokenness. I'm pretty sure that in most countries with universal health care, it is still possible to buy better or faster care on the open market. So things like this will always exist. And the money spent here is not the same money that would otherwise go to any aspect of universal health care.

[demigoddess]

3. i'm uncomfortable with it. It is so risky. So many things

can go wrong and harm any baby conceived. What if in the middle of a pregnancy the uterus is rejected? The drugs used for rejection could very well harm the baby. I would rather have a healthy baby by surrogacy than attempt to have it myself and risk its health. Yes, I have had healthy babies but also have gone through a pregnancy not knowing if the baby would be normal, healthy. Afterwards, I thought, "how could I have taken that chance!?!?!?!"

[Warpy]

4. Yeah? I know more women who'd be willing to donate theirs than get a new one!

In Sweden, where this is taking place, there is universal health care. Please remember that.

The US? We're WAY overdue for a revolution. Let's hope it's a relatively peaceful one, violent ones rarely work as advertised.