Changing Wombs - an ethical debate

The news that a NY hospital has plans for the transplant of a uterus hit the news this week and has raised some controversy among those opposed to such things. It is clearly a contentious subject and once again the "we can" and "should we" camps are at loggerheads over a scientific advance. It should be pointed out that there is no indication this is going ahead in the near future but research into at least the possiblity could help in many types of transplant. The Gekko went out onto the streets and into the blogs to find out what the feelings were on this subject. Below are just a few of the comments.

New York, USA
Bob Bobberson said, 36, said, "It's weird. I mean wouldn't she go mad having some dead womans uterus in there? Would the baby even be hers? It freaks me out. My buddy Louis went mad after he had a kidney transplant 'cos he couldn't handle taking another man's piss! He's in a special hospital now because he won't stop hitting other guys in the balls."

Edinburgh, Scotland
And Bob wasn't alone. Sally Sallerson, 26, said, "My husband had a penis transplant but I couldn't handle it. I felt guilty like I
was cheating on him. And he hated it too because it was... you know bigger and he thought I liked it more. Also when I got pregnant the donors family tried to claim custody of our child. I wish we had adopted."

Strong feelings from June too, she said here, "Jesus Christ… just fucking adopt. Trust me, there is NOTHING special about your DNA--we’re all virtually identical. I find the whole “Wah wah, I want to experience the miracle of childbirth and have a baby that looks like me!!” thing to be supremely stupid."

Katia said, "Essential? Really? Will I die without having a child? Essential...Holy SHIT! They never told me that. Oh...he probably means essential in an emotional sense. Oh thank GOD, now wait...that is even more ludicrous! Alarm Alarm! We have crazy women who find it ESSENTIAL to bear children. Give me a fucking break. Shame on him and shame on those women! Both parties put suffrage back to the stone ages."

Many people The Gekko spoke to were of the opinion that only vital transplants should be allowed, but who is to say what is vital? Are kidney transplants vital? You can survive with dialysis. Yes they are normally "performed to save lives, but increasingly they are being done to improve quality of life. Hand transplants and the recent partial face transplant in France are examples." (source)

One voice of reason The Gekko found was Nutty Mummy who said, "In 1954, controversy surrounded the first ever kidney transplant - but now that’s practically commonplace. I mean the kidney’s not really theirs though, right? So how is that justifiable or worth bothering about investigating? Can’t he just sit next to a dialysis machine for the rest of his shortened life? I mean that’s the same as having your own kidney. Isn’t it?
Don’t judge people for wanting their own children. It’s not fair if you have never even been in the position of knowing you can’t have your own. You are ignorant to how it really feels, as am I, and therefore I think not in a position to question their need."

It seems that the largest consensus of opinion is that people should just adopt, but what if you are not allowed to adopt? Yes in some countries like Outer Fulacrapistan you can pick a child up for 23, 000, 000, 000 choddies (about £23.47 or $46.32) but this is not the case in our enlightened West. We dont just hand them out. There are criteria for this kind of thing and some people just don't fill them and perhaps they are not suitable for IVF and cant find a willing surrogate.

As Sam says here, "You guys over there are lucky if you can adopt.... in Aust you have almost no chance whatsoever to adopt. There are so few (almost no) babies or children available that are born in Aust. If you do apply you have to meet: age, weight, marital, financial and health requirements for both parents… which by the time many have attempted their own DNA family they find they are outside the criteria anyway. Australia have a ‘foster’ system which is both long and short term on children requiring it. Oversees adoption is extremely remote also… from any country for anyone living in Australia… though I’ve heard that it is fairly easy to adopt within the USA or from a neighbouring country there… so you guys probably have more options for becoming parents.
However.... I do think that money would be better spent researching to restoring or giving sight or hearing, parkinsons, diabetes and childhood lukemia and a miriad of other causes that seem far more important and for people that don’t have another option (as you do if you are really desperate to become a parent)."

The Gekko also found Melody, who said here, "Wow. There is an incredible amount of judgment here on those pursuing assisted fertility treatment. There are lots of reasons why adoption might not be a viable option for some, including that it could even be illegal for many same sex couples depending on where they live.
How about chastising those who choose to spend $50,000 on a sports car or live in a larger house than they really need when they could be adopting an orphan or giving the money to AIDS research? There are all kinds of way to spend money frivolously that could otherwise be used to help those in need."

Peskymac said, "I could probably be convinced to donate mine to a friend in need. After all, I have no need of mine. I’m not using it for anything."

Kentucky, USA
Perhaps the most controversial comment comes from Lou Nittick, 35, who said, "I think we should stop all human procreation right now. Anyone who wants a child should be compelled to adopt, starting with the children from the poorest nations, as it’s far less morally objectional. Once they’re all sorted we can move onto the Western kids and finally get them all fixed up in a nice new place of their own. After that we can all go back to having kids with our own DNA though perhaps we should restrict couples to just one each like China as we wouldn’t want too many of the little nippers running about and starting the whole adoption crisis all over again.
And for safety’s sake we should make sure people have to get a license first so there aren’t any we don’t know about and punish people if they procreate without one by removing their uterus. But what we do with all those spare uteruses? Maybe we could stitch them all into legs or arms or something a bit more useful?" Shortly after this diatribe Lou was manhandled to the ground by several burly men with a large hypodermic needle and carted off to a waiting white van singing "I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles" in what can only be described as a fair impersonation of Barry White. Apparently he had led them a merry chase. The Gekko wishes him well. We also hope the burly man who took a sharp blow to his testicles in the brief but ferocious struggle is back on his feet. We understand it was very painful yet feel it incumbent upon us to point out that "necessary force" is not something that can be discarded in the quest for petty revenge.

However. Clearly more research must be done. Clearly all care should be taken to ensure the health and well-being of both prospective mother and child. Clearly laws must be made to deal with any legal problems that may arise. Nevertheless, if the right of a woman to abort her foetus is to be defended (Ed. note: as it should be) then surely her right to have one, in whatever way is necessary deserves equal protection.

We leave it to you to decide.

by Pete Riddish - Science Editor