Infertile Daughter To Receive Uterus From Mother

kkleiner writes "Led by Dr. Mats Brännström, a team of surgeons at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden are giving Sara Ottosson, now 25 years old, hope that she may one day fulfill her dream of giving birth to a baby. The uterus will come from a very special donor: Eva Ottosson, Sara's mother. Sara's operation will mark only the second time transplantation of a uterus has been attempted in humans, and the first time between a mother and daughter."

Comments

Not really so rare

[sackvillian]

Many children inherit their childhood home.

interesting angle

[v1]

If mom's past menopause she has no use for it anyway, and that's gotta help with the possibility of not needing to take anti-rejection meds too. Does make one wonder just how well a uterus possibly in its 50's will hold up to pregnancy though? Just because you transplant it into a younger person doesn't make the organ suddenly young again.

Re:interesting angle

[Rei]

The studies show surprisingly little impact to the embryo from immunosuppressant drugs. And there's already a large body of data on it; a successful pregnancy is generally considered one of the best signs that a person has adapted to a (non-uterine) transplant.

Re:interesting angle

[girlintraining]

Every mother carries cells within her body for life of the kids she has conceived (not necessarily given birth to). The female immune system has several features designed to inhibit normal immunological responses during pregnancy...

Re:interesting angle

[ModernGeek]

I'd also worry about the higher potential risk for cancer in an organ that would normally exist for a total of say 75 years, that may now end up existing for about 120.

Re:interesting angle

[Rei]

The uterus will be removed after (or even during) birth so that the mother can get off immunosuppressants.

Re:well ...

[kimvette]

Uterus != ovaries, so no.

Responsible?

[steevven1]

I feel bad for the girl who has problems with infertility, but is it really responsible to put your child at higher risk by having it grow in an essentially experimental situation, when you could just deal with your unfortunate problem, make the best of a bad situation, and possibly adopt?

Re:Responsible?

[Anonymous Coward]

agree.

It is pathetic how many resources are wasted on fertility medicine. There are plenty of children in need of adoption (not the foreign adopt a stolen kid kind); many children languish in foster care, only to graduate to the penal system when they turn 18. These kids could have radically different life paths if, folks instead invested the money, that would have gone to a fertility clinic, in an adopted child's education and upbringing..

Re:Responsible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surrogate mothers are not allowed in Sweden.

Re:Responsible?

[Seumas]

No, you have to remember. Squirting out one of your own makes you a wise sage and quite nearly a saint for looking after your own responsibility for the next eighteen years. It's everyone else who doesn't squirt one out and demand to replicate their genetic structure like wild dogs that are selfish and self-centered. Media outlets act like the people in this family are a cross between victims and heroes, when the real admirable thing to do would be to put all that money and energy spent trying to reproduce those faulty genes into helping some poor child out there who would be delighted to have a family of their own.

Re:Responsible?

[Rei]

There's a variety of different ways uterine transplants can be done, and different surgeons are looking at different ones. Two major differences are whether you're dealing donors from cadavers and donors from live patients. Donor uteruses from cadavers obviously aren't doing their owner any good. Donor uteruses from live patients will be generally from surgical situations where the uterus would be removed anyway (clearly not in this situation, but in the general case...). The use of cadavers allows a lot more of the surrounding tissue to be transplanted, which makes blood vessel reconnections easier; however, organs from cadavers are more likely to have complications.

My sympathies to your GF; antiepileptics are generally pretty nasty during pregnancy to the fetus. My spouse is also epileptic, although is trying to wean herself off them. I myself follow this news closely.

Re:Responsible?

[Rei]

Pregnancies while on immunosuppressants are not rare. There's a huge body of data on their effects on fetuses. There's no body of data on humans born from transplanted uteruses, of course, but the immunosuppressant side is already well covered, and at least in theory, that is the area of concern.

The risk to the patient is *very* real. Transplants are dangerous in the best of circumstances. The patient only needs to carry the transplant for 1 1/2 to 2 years (there's a period after the transplant where they monitor the organ for signs of failure, then there's at least one attempt at implantation, then the organ is removed at the time of birth) -- but there's still significnt chance of risk -- almost certainly a double-digit chance of death. But here's how I personally look at it. The rate of death during pregnancy before modern medicine was about 1.5%, and the average woman had many children (let's say 7 or so) to account for the high rate of infant and child mortality. That's a 10% chance of death per woman. Yet if women hadn't taken that risk -- sometimes accidentally, but more often, knowingly -- we, as a species, would not exist.

Re:Responsible?

[cheekyjohnson]

I'd say she should adopt a child. I think that this world is already overpopulated with humans as it is.

Re:Responsible?

[Macrat]

I'd say she should adopt a child. I think that this world is already overpopulated with humans as it is.

Agreed. I've never understood the need to waste resources on reproduction when there are so many unwanted children in the world looking for a home.

Re:Responsible?

[phantomfive]

Not possible in this case, as surrogacy is illegal in Sweden (per the article).

Re:Responsible?

[Kjella]

Those that fight to have their own child, stay in the gene pool. Those that don't and raise someone else's, exit the gene pool. You don't get much stronger evolutionary pressure than that. Also from what I've heard it's not that hard to find people to adopt babies or very young children. Those you find in foster care are often older, taken out of their home because they've suffered neglect, abuse or molestation and alcoholics or junkies as parents. As a result many of them have developed huge problems of their own, which many people are reluctant to adopt. And if you end up with someone that's already in the rebellious phase who likes to point out you're not his real parents, well the amount of bonding you get will be limited. Even if people got other the part about having their own child, don't expect the institutions to be empty.

Re:Responsible?

[interkin3tic]

I think that this world is already overpopulated with humans as it is.

No it isn't. There aren't a lot of people dying of starvation due to scarcity of food, which is the usual way of indicating overpopulation. Seems to me that people starving these days are mostly due to neglect or problems with distribution, both of which would happen with half the population we have now.

Environmental damage is not a sign of overpopulation either, that's poor resource management and again, could and would be happening with half our population levels.

We're certainly not running out of space on Earth, so that's right out.

Seriously, what makes you say the world is overpopulated? Traffic on your commute getting worse? Warped elitism "I didn't have a kid, and it was because having a kid is an irresponsible thing to do?"

Anyway, it looks like Sweden's population is growing extremely slow, 0.9% in 2009. One more kid in the world doesn't change the situation much.

Re:Responsible?

[EdgeCreeper]

Maybe because it is because most people like to reproduce rather than show altruism as great as adopting a child. You know, human nature.

Re:Responsible?

[gohmifune]

Yep, give the breeders a "way out" of their grief and allow them to keep spawning children knowing that there are people who will take care of their "mistake" so they don't have to.

Irregardless of the reproductive choices of some, all children have the right to love and a chance to thrive. No child is a mistake. Some are victims of circumstances, but never a mistake.

We should be willing to care for children. They have right to be cared for.

Re:Responsible?

[narcc]

How many resources are wasted on curing deafness?

Most of them, I'd wager. The "deaf community" is very hostile to cochlear implants -- they actually think being deaf is a good thing.

There's a neat documentary (it's watch instant on netflix) called "Sound and Fury". If you didn't hate "deaf culture", you will after watching this eye-opening documentary.

Never mind the rampant illiteracy and extraordinarily low unemployment, these idiots think that being deaf is perfectly normal and that they're not limited in way. Thus, they refuse their children the one technology that will make their lives easier.

Hell, one deaf school fired it's superintendent for not being deaf from birth. These people are evil.

Re:Responsible?

[theheadlessrabbit]

"Why go through the mess of transplantation of that magnitude?"

Do it for science.

If this is a world-first, regardless of the outcome, these doctors will learn from this experiment, and the body of human knowledge will grow. I think it's entirely worth it to do crazy medical stuff like this when people volunteer.

If we don't try, we won't ever know what' possible to achieve.

Re:Responsible?

[Hungus]

All these orphans are unwanted why not just perform REALLY late term abortions on them? Nothing magical happens by traveling down a vagina. The NY Times reported in 2007 some 32% of children never traveled down one, they were delivered via cesarian. Since they are not old enough to survive on their own (hence the need for fostering/ adoption) save us all some money and just pop a 22 round in them, or use them for science experiments instead of the poor bunnies and chimps which are getting rights anyways. Even better train the older ones as suicide bombers or assassins or heck if you want to be nice and keep them around anyway let them be useful just reinstitute slavery.

My grandparents were foster parents, adopted 1 (in addition their their natural 3) and tried to adopt a 2nd, courts would not let them despite the fact that they were more than capable of taking care of another child (their 2 oldest were already off at college). While Granddad may not have been uber wealthy money wise he did have 160 acres including farmland and livestock plus he was a mail carrier, barber, welder and volunteer fireman.

Re:Responsible?

[realityimpaired]

It isn't the same, and wouldn't be enough to satisfy many women. And I say that as a woman who can't get pregnant due to a lack of a functioning uterus. Part of me desperately wants to have children (in spite of being a lesbian, and despite my partner bringing 4 kids from her previous marriage), and I can say quite plainly that adoption or using a surrogate isn't the same. If there was a surgical procedure that could give me the ability to bear children myself, I would leap on it. And if the opportunity to be part of developing that procedure arose, I would have a very hard time saying no, even in full awareness that it could put my own life at risk, and lead to an increased chance of a miscarriage... a small chance of bearing a healthy baby is better than no chance of it.

Re:Responsible?

[phantomfive]

I know what you are saying is true in many cases, but you might want to be careful getting all your information from a single documentary. There are a lot of deaf people, maybe even most, who aren't so insane......

Re:Responsible?

[Miser]

I wish I had mod points, as I'd mod you up as high as the system would let me.

My gal and I? Childfree and loving it. :)

Cheers,

Miser

Re:Responsible?

[tibit]

It isn't a question of personal satisfaction... there's other forces at play there. Instinct, biological urges, hormones going haywire within peoples' systems

Look, if all that was driving me was instinct and biological urges, I'd probably have more kids with more women than I could reasonably remember. I think that being able to overcome instinct and urges is what makes us human. To think otherwise would imply that you should be OK to have teenagers fucking at every corner. If you're OK with that, then sorry, I'm barking up the wrong tree. Otherwise, what you pass for an argument doesn't fly by me so far, sorry.

Re:Responsible?

[speederaser]

..but why adopt or take the risk of a donor womb when an artificial uterus would solve the problem?

To answer your question, here is the first sentence from the page you linked to (emphasis mine):

An artificial uterus (or womb) is a theoretical device...

In other words, they don't exist.

Re:Responsible?

[trytoguess]

Also, just to note, there's a sequel to the documentary called Sound and Fury 6 Years Later. Turns out the two deaf parents decided to implant Heather 3 years later when she was 9, and even the mom got implanted. All in all, I think the parents acted in a fairly understandable way. Initially, they were against implanting since it brought up too much emotions about deaf people being inferior, but they later accepted that it'd be better if the kids were able to walk two worlds so to speak. Frankly their issues were so similar to the ones faced by immigrant cultures that it was rather eerie.

I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Seumas]

Fucking adopt. Seriously. Instead of being a bunch of selfish fuckwads demanding to xerox as exact a copy of yourself as possible, how about you save all the money involved in this process and just adopt a kid or two? For the price most people spend in various attempts to squirt one of their own out (aside from this particular incident, of course), they could adopt someone and have their entire college fund taken care of from day one.

I know I'm supposed to feel sorry for people like this. Boo hoo, you can't replicate like a ferrel cat. Tough shit. All those kids without families have it a hell of a lot harder than that.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno about there, but adopting babies almost impossible in US. There simply is not enough to fulfill the need.

I have some relatives that tried to "save the world" as they put it, and adopt kids (not babies). These are very intelligent parents, one has masters in nursing, the second a masters in mathematics and education. The kids were not emotionally stable when they got them at ages from about 8-10 years old. 30 years later one killed himself after losing total visitation rights to his kids, a second has also lost total visitation rights and pretty much hangs with teenagers doing drugs, a third has never been able to keep stable relationships and therefore has never had a family. As a control, their own biological kids turned out great. They also say with hindsight they would not do it again.

I have several professional friends that have elected to adopt. None of them were able to do it in the US (one Russia, rest China).

I believe there is a very strong desire among most adults to replicate.

Appreciate your cost saving ideals, but not sure there is a practical solution.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[Anonymus]

She sees it as a (highly dangerous) chance to have a kid naturally, the rest of the world (outside of Slashdot, apparently) sees it as a way to further science. It's pretty much win-win all around. I don't see why everyone here is railing against it so hard, since in most cases science for science's sake is a laudable goal around here. I imagine it is partly due to the fact Slashdot is incredibly skewed towards not only the male demographic, but the single-male-who-hates-children demographic. If this sort of thing became commonplace, yeah, it's kind of a waste, but save your disdain for later and for now respect the incredible risk this woman is taking.

Re:I have a MUCH easier solution.

[petsounds]

Given the overpopulation of the planet and scarcity of natural resources, procreation is indeed rather irrational.

Re:FRANKENSTEIN!

[Rei]

Right. Chiropractic adjustments will make her grow a uterus.

I take it you didn't bother to read the article?

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[Macrat]

How about choosing adoption?

So, daughter's husband dropping his seed into....

[ip_freely_2000]

the mother-in-law's uterus. I think my testicles just shrank into my belly.

Re:Takes a look at photo from the article ...

[Nemyst]

Delivery in 15 seconds or less, guaranteed.

Whats wrong with you people?

[metalmaster]

ADOPT! ADOPT! ADOPT!

How can you criticize a woman for doing something like this? She wants to have her own child by any means necessary that's her decision to make. There has been and always will be a different sense of nurturing from the womb onward. My mother is a mother of 4 but a mom to 14+(and this number grows.) She will show love and kindness to any child that comes into her life, but with her 4 boys there's something special. Im sure this is true of any caring mother. It takes a special kind of caring and compassionate person to be an adoptive parent. I applaud these people and I am thankful that they exist in the world, but as a man there will be nothing more special to me than to hold my baby that came from the connection i share with my partner. I know she will feel the same.

How about you focus your misdirected anger at the men and women of the world who choose to spread their legs without thinking of the consequences. Why should they go about their activities with the idea that "meh, someone will adopt this baby." I understand that not every woman has a choice. Some are forced into screwed up situations and they would rather adopt than abort, but these cases are outnumbered by the idiots who engage in senseless acts of procreation.

Re:Whats wrong with you people?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Nothing wrong with preferring to have biological children, of course. But it's still a serious question to some of us. Why should a baby that is a result of your DNA more special than someone else's child? I always thought the joys of parenting were to do with human relationships rather than the passing on of one's DNA. Isn't this "something special" really just sentimentality or instinct?

As for the second part, do I really need to dignify that with a response?

Re:FRANKENSTEIN!

[interkin3tic]

Heh Dr.Bob,DC is a known troller (Some even suspect it is a bot)

Bah, they only suspect that because they are paranoid because their humors are out of balance because their chi is misdirected because they have subluxations. A good vertebral adjustment and trepanation will make them realize Dr. Bob is a modern day medical messiah.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[interkin3tic]

How about choosing adoption?

Story was posted at 11:25 PM, yours at 12:17 AM. So it took Slashdot at most 45 minutes to think of adoption. This woman presumably has been thinking about it longer. She's consulted with doctors, who are generally not idiots. Her mother is obviously on board, so it's safe to assume that her family is involved in this decision. So there are multiple people who are talking to her about this.

You can't possibly believe adoption had neither occurred to her, nor had it been suggested to her at some point.

She -must-- have some reason why she didn't want to adopt. Maybe you and I wouldn't agree with the reasons, but she has them.

A child at any price?

[bradley13]

This is great for writing medical papers, but in truth it is simply irresponsible medicine. If she can't have a child, well, life's a bitch. If this works, she is going to be on massive medication, like any transplant patient. To conceive and carry a child under those circumstances is simply nuts. Even organizations that totally support transplant patients point out the massive risks involved.

If this woman is this desperate for a child, she needs psychological counseling more than she needs a new uterus.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[eugene ts wong]

So, you're saying that because the idea ran through her head, she must have given it proper thought.

According to the article, suffering of infertility seems to be more unbearable than being unadopted. Some times, I think that orphans are societal rejects. We act as if there is no urgency to put them in families.

If this fails, she plans to adopt

[gr8dude]

The ending bit of the video attached to the article - "if this fails, she plans to adopt". Can you blame her for trying before giving up?

You say "can't replicate like a feral cat", but that is not what is really happening. Those parents who abandon their children usually breed like feral cats (hence there is a great supply of such children), whereas in her case it is not mentioned anywhere that she wants a "houseful" of babies.

You also say that people should better spend their money in different ways. But if they earned it, don't they have the right to choose what to do with it? [as long as it is not something illegal - like buying guns and killing other people]

I may have acted differently, had I been in their shoes, but I can't say I have reasons to say they are stupid or irresponsible.

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[Richard Dick Head]

For real.

I'm sure that uterus will become immortal, passing from mother to daughter for all eternity.

Somehow we have to allow people choice, and yet, the human imperative to breed means they go out and pass on their deformities to the next generation, making the problem worse.

Ultimately, an enlightened person will come to the conclusion that genetically engineering the human race (at least selecting the best available of the couple's sperm and ova) is the only way that all of humanity will not become degenerate slaves to modern medicine.

Re:well ...

[imsabbel]

Made the same mistake in my comment below, before looking up the Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome.

Scary part: Relevance 1 in 5000. Main symptom: no uterus _and_ no vagina.

Wikipedia has also the following insane story:
"In 1988, a teenager living in the small southern African nation of Lesotho came to local doctors with all the symptoms of a woman in labor. The doctors were puzzled, however, because she did not have a vagina, only a shallow skin dimple. Doctors traced her pregnancy to a knife wound to her abdomen 278 days earlier, after she had practiced fellatio on her boyfriend. The sperm had leaked from her stomach to her abdominal cavity and fertilized one of her eggs. This case was reported by Dr. Richard Paulson, head of the University of Southern California Fertility Program in Los Angeles, February 3, 2010.[3]"

Sounds just like something from House...

Re:And they do that with socialized medicine!

[Foobar of Borg]

So, you're saying that because the idea ran through her head, she must have given it proper thought.

Too bad she didn't just log into slashdot so she could get a more informed opinion.

Ah, the Internet! For all your important decisions!

womb for improvement

[pensano]

From the spacetime topological perspective, would this make her the first human Klein bottle?

Screw You Darwin! Evolution is Extinct!

[VortexCortex]

I think now would be a good time to begin archiving our important scientific and mathematic discoveries for the future sentient beings that may eventually take our place. Primates, I'm looking at you...

I am developing a language that any intelligent creature grasping basic mathematics should be able to decipher. Previous attempts seem sophomoric to me, and assume too much (low res. raster of a man, child and woman? Don't make me laugh).

In the stone and crystalline tablets we should denounce the perception of the knowledge as coming from a race of Gods, and to this end include the story of our great achievements in gene pool pollution.

Do you have a genetic defect? Welcome to the gene pool! We'll be happy to go through any lengths to ensure you can spread your corrupted genetic sequence on to other lifeforms -- Even if it means growing your offspring in another being, or transplanting wombs!

Natural Selection be damned; We'll do whatever it takes to not discriminate against your deformities in the bedroom.

Of course I would tone down the irony and describe the principals in simple genetic and mathematical terms for our successors. However, I assume my fellow Slashdoters -- being of the same culture and language -- can easily grasp the principals I have sarcastically alluded to above.

Re:well ...

[Rei]

The upper vagina, at least. The upper vagina and the uterus form from the Müllerian duct. The lower vagina forms from the urogenital sinus. The boundary between the two is the hymen.

Trivia: In men, the Mullerian duct degenerates to a tiny structure attached to the prostate and wrapped around the urethra, called the "prostatic utricle". It contracts during orgasm just the same as in women.