Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Birth From Human Womb Transplant

Posted by timothy on from the grandma-where-do-babies-come-from? dept.

BarbaraHudson (3785311) writes The headline sounds like something from the tabloids — "Woman becomes first to give birth from transplanted womb — using one donated from her own mother.'" But it's from The National Post, quoting The Lancet: "The breakthrough was reported by The Lancet medical journal on its website last night. It is thought the birth occurred within the last month after doctors transplanted wombs into several women who had a rare genetic condition that meant they were born without their own womb. In January, one of the patients underwent in-vitro fertilization treatment that resulted in an embryo being transferred to her new womb. The donated womb came from the woman's own mother, so the baby is also the first born to a woman using the same womb from which she emerged herself. In wake of the Lancet article, the Swedish team refused to confirm a baby had been born, saying: "As soon as there is a scientific peer-reviewed paper, we will comment on this. I will provide you with information as soon as we have some." Eight of Dr. Brannstrom's patients received their wombs from close relatives, reducing the risk of their bodies rejecting them." There's nothing at The Lancet online yet." There is, though, an article at the BBC.

73 of 120 comments (clear)

  1. Just because you can... by Rande · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...doesn't mean that you _should_.

    In this case, what happens when the child has the same genetic defect? Pass the womb on 3rd hand?

    1. Re:Just because you can... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      invitro so might not be her egg.

    2. Re:Just because you can... by burni2 · · Score: 4

      Well sience has 20 years to find a solution for that.

      Btw. what you ment with "should" is, that you want to hinder reproduction - natural and assistent - because of the possibility of transfering a birth defect.

      To paint the picture you could also say "Sterilize the genetically disabled"

      Or to go further, why should you support disabled people who cannot care for themselves, naturally they would die!?

      My answer to this is: because it's the difference between humane and inhumane.

    3. Re:Just because you can... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Or to go further, why should you support disabled people who cannot care for themselves, naturally they would die!?

      Whoa, there's a big difference between caring for your damaged and defective, and making more defectives. I chose not to breed in part because of the lack of familial support and in part because I don't think my genetics are all that fantastic. The "Espinoza Curse" includes respiratory problems in addition to the cute nose and huge wang ;)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Just because you can... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Personally I think allowing people who can not care for themselves to be born is absolutely inhumane.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    5. Re:Just because you can... by ImprovOmega · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That would seem statistically unlikely. The womb itself does not contribute to the genetics of the person and presumably it's possible to not have a uterus but still have ovaries. In this case the woman's defect would almost certainly be canceled out by the man's sperm since even though she is a carrier, it is incredibly unlikely that he is also, and even if so it's a 50/50 proposition. It's completely and utterly different than inbreeding in which you're recombining the same defects.

    6. Re:Just because you can... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Personally I think allowing people who can not care for themselves to be born is absolutely inhumane.

      Well, I guess that takes care of the human race ... no human can take care of themselves without a lot of care in the first few years, and even later we still depend on each other as a society, to provide jobs, policing, etc.

      Or we could go all Romulus and Reemus, and let the wolves raise our kids :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:Just because you can... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      I'm thankful that I don't have any disabilities yet. I enjoy cycling, if I received brain-damage that disabled me and altered my personality then I'd like the state to put me down!

      Being an able-bodied person means a lots to me, I wouldn't want to be born as a disabled person.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    8. Re:Just because you can... by burni2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is that difference really that big?

      If you look into the history of eugenics you can clearly see that both arguments (sterilizing disabled and euthanasia of so called "unworthy life") come from the same way of thinking - rationalism.

      And well (nazi)germany has implemented both - crimes against humanity, however the philosophy of total rationalism (which eugenic & euthanisia) was discussed in many other countries at that time including (pre-nazi)Sweden and Great Britian.

      In Sweden(yes Sweden the country of the Nobel prize!) till the early 1990s disabled people were being sterilized - this btw. does not only include physical or cognitive disabilities but also cases of psychiatric patients.

      And you said it yourself you "chose" not to breed,
      nobody made the choice for you.

      There is no real difference between both solutions:

      Because they both stem from the same "total rationalistic" way of thinking. The totalitaristic rule of the total rational thinking, will treat human life and freedom of choice being somewhat expendable and hindering.

    9. Re:Just because you can... by burni2 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you will think differently when you became disabled?

      Btw. the logic way would be that you start only doing indoor cycling, because otherwise you take higher chances to become disabled.

      But it's your own choice to end your life if this happens. Perhaps someone at Silk Road X sells red pills and you can pre-order some? And as a precaution you should make a "patients testamony" that you don't want life extending treatment.

    10. Re:Just because you can... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you will think differently when you became disabled?

      I very much doubt it.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    11. Re:Just because you can... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And you said it yourself you "chose" not to breed,
      nobody made the choice for you.

      Yeah, there's a big difference between those two things, too.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Just because you can... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you will think differently when you became disabled?

      I very much doubt it.

      Maybe, maybe not, but that's not germane to the point at hand. Most of us would agree with you. I've told my relatives "take me out behind the barn, shoot me, and harvest anything that can be of use to someone else" if there's not enough functioning brain to continue to "be me". Or if the quality of life got so low that you wouldn't let a dog suffer that much.

      But there's no evidence that a womb transplant will result in people who are unable to care for themselves less than anyone else after they reach adulthood. After all, this is the first successful birth. We won't have the answer for a while ... and just one result isn't statistically significant anyway.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    13. Re:Just because you can... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      I'm not against the womb transplant if it works, and I wouldn't deny medicine the chance to perfect the operation etc. Just against people having children that wouldn't be able to support themselves when they become adults. What would be wrong is if it was known that the woman with the transplant would give birth to a child also without a womb, but I'm guessing that's not the case.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    14. Re:Just because you can... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      Well, while they're in there, they could always implant some cameras inside to check on the health of the fetus - you know, a "womb with a view" :-)

      Though knowing people, other women would want the same, so that they can constantly update their facebook status with the latest pics of their unborn child. Or worse, a live stream. And then the cops will get involved, because in their efforts to expand their budgets, that too falls under the definition of producing and distributing child pornography. And then kids running around in bathing suits. And then school uniforms "because some people have a school uniform fetish." And eventually kids will have to go around with burkas "just in case", because even terr'ists get treated better than pornographers.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    15. Re:Just because you can... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between "sterilize the disabled" and "don't preserve a genetic defect by helping it reproduce when it couldn't do so on its own".

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  2. Amazing progress... by Elledan · · Score: 4, Informative

    Amazing progress, but it would be nice if the attitude within the medical scientific community to for example intersex-born individuals wasn't still stuck somewhere in the 19th century. Progress is relative.

    How many people here actually know what intersex is? I didn't know it existed (among humans at least) or what it was called until I was 21 and I was born intersex (hermaphrodite).

    Don't get me wrong, it's great that these women born without certain reproductive organs are getting them transplanted, but on the other side doctors are also chopping up the genitals of intersex infants and manipulating intersex adults like yours truly into 'normalization' surgeries.

    Heck, after consulting dozens of 'experts' in about a dozen countries I honestly couldn't tell you which reproductive and related organs I do or don't have exactly. I also meet so many others who had to discover as a teenager or adult that their parents and medical file have withheld details about surgery being performed on them as an infant.

    So yes, happy news for some, but just a bitter feeling for many others who had the misfortune of not being born a 'normal' male or female even one missing some bits...

    Excuse the brief rant :)

    --
    Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
    1. Re:Amazing progress... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      What on earth does this have to do with the topic at-hand? Do you post this on any medical science related story?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    2. Re:Amazing progress... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I Doubt any kind of genital surgery was common in the 19th century , and I'm guessing the medical scientific communities attitude towards hermaphrodites in the 19th century was somewhere between "Biblical Abomination, drown it in the river" and "WTF is that, poke, prod and experiment on it" , so pretty sure progress has been made. If you feel that's not the case I would recomend offering solutions or suggestions instead of just whining about the way things are.

      I'm not sure it's correct to call it progress rather than getting up from the dark ages. In pagan and polytheistic cultures hermaphrodites were worshiped as fertility symbols. Even in relatively old Christian communities hermaphrodites weren't really seen as an abomination. Some even claim that Adam was an hermaphrodite until God split him and created Eve.
      Pre-renaissance cultures have a very bad reputation that to some extend is unfounded.

    3. Re:Amazing progress... by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Indeed. There is still a lot of womb for improvement.

    4. Re:Amazing progress... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > I Doubt any kind of genital surgery was common in the 19th century

      I'd certainly agree that the transplantation or reconstruction of working sexual organs was unavailable. But what, precisely, would you call castration, circumcision, clitorectomy, C-section, or genital piercings? Even abortions and surgical assistance with cysts, tumors, and physical trauma all existed, through they would have been emergency treatments rather than scheduled treatment.

    5. Re:Amazing progress... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They chop up genitals of normal male infants too. Don't take it personally.

    6. Re:Amazing progress... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I Doubt any kind of genital surgery was common in the 19th century

      Excuse me, but the poster was talking about medical and scientific attitudes, not medical and scientific acts.

      Also, you're wrong. Surgery on the intersexed goes back at least to the mid-1700's. See page 49 this report. That's the 18th century.

      And if you read the rest of the paper, the problem is that the attitude of many in the medical community has not changed - doctors want to "fix" children at a very young age, without any real test to know what the right solution is in any individual case, or whether the patient is content to just leave well enough alone. At least with transsexuals you can get feedback from the patient, even at a young age, as to what is "right" for them.

      If you feel that's not the case I would recomend offering solutions or suggestions instead of just whining about the way things are.

      Posting on sites like slashdot IS doing something - it's providing real-life examples of "hey, there's a problem here" and getting it out into the open. We can't all say "well, there's a problem, so I'm going to devote the next 2 decades to becoming a doctor and THEN fighting it." Just not practical, and in the meantime another 20 years of IS children "get it in the groin", so to speak. I know, that's rather blunt language, but how would you like someone messing around with your "bits" without your permission, or even knowledge?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:Amazing progress... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      It is related to the topic at hand. This procedure possibly allows some of those who are intersexed and whose reproductive organs are not sufficiently developed for either sex, or whose reproductive options were removed without their knowledge or consent when they were young, to carry a child.

      Now what most women want to see is the replication of the situation in John Brunner's "Stand on Zanzibar", where men are complaining about back pain, morning sickness, job impact, etc., because it's "their turn" to carry the baby to term.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re:Amazing progress... by markass530 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      someone did, it was my parents call (circumcision) as is the case with any intersex babies so the "Medical community attitude" isn't really the prevailing factor . Posting all this on a slashdot article about an artifical womb is the wrong way to go about things. Also according to your document the "attitude within the medical scientific community" has changed quite a bit since the 19th century

    9. Re:Amazing progress... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2
      And yet it's still routine for doctors and parents to decide what gender an IS baby or young child should be, without the patient's knowledge or consent.. And the summary makes a point of saying that since 1950, this practice has become systemic. So, while the attitude may have changed, the practice hasn't.

      Posting all this on a slashdot article about an artifical womb is the wrong way to go about things.

      The article is about increasing reproductive options for people who were born without a womb. How is that *not* on topic for those who are intersexed, where some of the reproductive organs are either not present, not developed fully, or have been mutilated? It's certainly more on-topic than all those jokes about "hand-me-down wombs" and stuff elsewhere in the thread.

      Look, I get it. It's not something everyone deals with on a daily basis - but for those who do have to deal with it, why not let them bring their perspective to the table, and give them at least a bit of credit for having the courage to open up about it. The original post may not have made the point that I'm making - that it is definitely on topic - but the point has now been made, and it wouldn't have been without their original post wrt the intersexed. So, instead of criticizing them for "whining", why not discuss the real issue - that this is a reproductive option society is going to have to come to grips with, the same as we did with both artificial insemination and "test tube babies," and discuss how it impacts the various members of our society differently? :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    10. Re:Amazing progress... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Whining is complaining about something without offering a solution, or at least an idea of some sort.

      I think you misunderstand. Getting people to talk about something by saying "I have a related issue" to someone born without a womb helps advance the discussion, and maybe leads to a solution. But do you think that, after opening up, they're going to engage in a discussion where they're basically told "quit yer whining?"

      I've talked to plenty of people who sought me out because they *didn't* have a solution. If they had one, they wouldn't be seeking someone else's advice. I don't necessarily have a solution either, but at least by talking about it, brainstorming, sharing, maybe we can shake something loose.

      When I went for professional help for ptsd, it was because I was out of coping mechanisms. I realized where I was headed, that I couldn't do it on my own any more, and didn't have a clue as to what to do next except make my problem known and say "I need help."

      I'm not implying that you're acting like a dick or anything like that - just that some problems are very hard to discuss even on a pseudo-anonymous forum, and most people who haven't gone through "that sort of thing" in one way or another naturally have a harder time relating. That's part of the discussion, which is why I, for one, welcome the chance to have this dialog with you and others. Having an answer is only part of the solution. Changing attitudes is often the biggest hurdle, which is why more of us are completely "out". Society imposes an incredible burden of shame on those who are different, and we pick up on it and, unfortunately, internalize it. It's not logical, but we're only human.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    11. Re:Amazing progress... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The human race would die out.

      Assume they flip a coin for who has to be pregnant first...0.50 children per family (assuming the woman is fool enough to carry one if she looses the flip)

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:Amazing progress... by davydagger · · Score: 1

      I think the OP was talking about *attitudes*, specificly on the theories of gender, and non-traditional gender constructs.

      It all gets back to biblical phobias over someone's free will to do with their body as they please.

    13. Re:Amazing progress... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Genital surgery of one sort or another goes back as far as humanity. What do folks think circumcision IS, anyway? what about eunuchs, which sometimes were not only castrated, but also had the penis cut off? how about the various, um, 'decorative' things primitive peoples often do to both male and female genitals? (Sometimes it's a wonder they could still reproduce.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    14. Re:Amazing progress... by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      I do. I learned it in 1990. For the the most annoying thing about TFA is the use of the word "womb", as if this were 1814 not 2014. Are we really afraid of the word UTERUS?

    15. Re:Amazing progress... by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      I Doubt any kind of genital surgery was common in the 19th century

      Seriously? When do you think circumcision, castration, and orchiectomy were first practiced?

    16. Re:Amazing progress... by Elledan · · Score: 1

      'Uterus' sounds too scientific and medical, I guess :) I'm pretty sure most of the population has no clue what it is if you ask them.

      --
      Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
  3. Womb with a view... by Bob_Who · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Talk about hand me downs, this makes wearing you mothers wedding gown or grandmothers wedding ring seem like a quaint gesture. Re-gifting doesn't come close to re-wombing in terms of tradition and family heritage....

  4. Swedish article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Boy.
    Born with C-section.
    1775 grams
    No special care needed for the baby.

    Some contradictions (to the slashdot summary) regarding who the womb came from. 61 year old woman, no relation.

  5. Deja View by geekmux · · Score: 1

    "...the baby is also the first born to a woman using the same womb from which she emerged herself."

    Can't imagine the deja vu Vulcan Womb Meld that just got created between baby and mother with this one.

    "What is your earliest thought?"

    "The feeling I've been here before."

  6. Nature got there first by Krymzn · · Score: 2

    Other people's wombs have been used before, though not deliberately: They were using their own twin's womb because they were a chimera. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

  7. Re:Is that treatment for women only? by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 2

    Look at me! Mr. "I'm my own grandpa!"

  8. the end of hope for male geeks everywhere by confused+one · · Score: 1

    This, with artificial implantation and genetic engineering, brings us one step closer to asexual reproduction. It won't be long before science is able to pair DNA from two women to create a new offspring. Artificial wombs will follow. Soon women won't need men any more. Then the male geeks will go from having had a limited chance, to having zero hope of ever meeting a woman and having sex.

    1. Re:the end of hope for male geeks everywhere by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      This, with artificial implantation and genetic engineering, brings us one step closer to asexual reproduction. It won't be long before science is able to pair DNA from two women to create a new offspring. Artificial wombs will follow. Soon women won't need men any more. Then the male geeks will go from having had a limited chance, to having zero hope of ever meeting a woman and having sex.

      Oh, you think women only put up with sex with males because they get babies out of it? Dude, there are sexist, racist, white bread men from the 1950's looking at you saying, "oh no he dint!"

      Maybe you are rationalizing why you never get any? :-)

    2. Re:the end of hope for male geeks everywhere by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      This, with artificial implantation and genetic engineering, brings us one step closer to asexual reproduction. It won't be long before science is able to pair DNA from two women to create a new offspring.

      I just wanted to point out that these are two different things. If there's two organisms involved then it's sexual reproduction. For it to be truly asexual you would have to fuse genetic material from two eggs from the same woman - this is actually worse than inbreeding a brother and sister because *every* bad recessive gene you have has a 50/50 chance to present both copies in the offspring. With siblings at least about half your genes are different. Two different women wouldn't present this problem, but that is not asexual reproduction.

    3. Re:the end of hope for male geeks everywhere by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      See "Houston, Houston, Do You Read ...?" by Alice Sheldon, pen name James Tiptree Jr. The wikipedia summary fails to capture the true feeling of the story. Definitely a must read for any sci-fi fan.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:the end of hope for male geeks everywhere by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You need to read up on your biology. The first same-sex offspring will be from 2 males, not 2 females, although a female egg (not necessarily human) will be needed to produce it.

      No, only one person needed. It's called parthenogenisis, and always results in a a female in mammals.

      Parthenogenetic progeny of mammals would have two X chromosomes, and would therefore be female.

      So, only one person needed, resulting in a female clone of the mother.

      On August 2, 2007, after much independent investigation, it was revealed that discredited South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk unknowingly produced the first human embryos resulting from parthenogenesis. Initially, Hwang claimed he and his team had extracted stem cells from cloned human embryos, a result later found to be fabricated. Further examination of the chromosomes of these cells show indicators of parthenogenesis in those extracted stem cells, similar to those found in the mice created by Tokyo scientists in 2004. Although Hwang deceived the world about being the first to create artificially cloned human embryos, he did contribute a major breakthrough to stem cell research by creating human embryos using parthenogenesis.[82] The truth was discovered in 2007, long after the embryos were created by him and his team in February 2004. This made Hwang the first, unknowingly, to successfully perform the process of parthenogenesis to create a human embryon and, ultimately, a human parthenogenetic stem cell line.

      So, it's been done (though by accident), and they were female because parthenogenesis in mammals always results in females. And that concludes today's lesson on single-sex reproduction. Try the fish :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re:the end of hope for male geeks everywhere by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You have no idea what the average rub out/fuck ratio is for women. There are many who basically never get any pleasure out of sex with humans, it's just a chore.

      We should put up a /. poll...This being /. the error bars would be large due to small study size (for women of course).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:the end of hope for male geeks everywhere by davydagger · · Score: 1

      the same reason people still eat steak over its soy equivilants.

      The amount of ignoramous about sex in this thread is mind boggling.

    7. Re:the end of hope for male geeks everywhere by davydagger · · Score: 1

      There are many who demand it more than men as well.

      There are also many men who don't care for sex either. Strange, but yets.

      Myths and stereotypes about human sexuality.

  9. What? by rebelwarlock · · Score: 1
    This summary makes no sense.

    It is thought the birth occurred within the last month after doctors transplanted wombs into several women who had a rare genetic condition that meant they were born without their own womb.

    So did it, or didn't it? How do you not know when the birth took place?

  10. Adopt! by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I will forever be thankful for our fertility doctor. We sat in front of him and he told my wife she could never bare children. She asked "what can you do?" He smiled and said "Given enough hope and money, there's practically no end to what I could do. But there are desperate children all over that need parents. It may be that life is giving you a hint." That line will remain with me for the rest of my life because it rang so true and cut through the bullshit of modern life.

    I'd not thought of adopting... and I immediately thought "That will be a hell of a lot less work and my wife wont get fat!!"

    I was wrong on both accounts in the end, but, I'm currently the proud father of the best son a father could ever have. Standing on the outside and looking at it you think you could never love an adopted kid the same as you would your own flesh. But I'm here to tell you that you can and will. He is my son. He knows he's adopted and he thinks it's cool. He brags to his friends that "His parents went all the way to Africa for him!"

    Anyway, I find it sad that we go to such extreme, untested and dangerous lengths to solve a problem that already has a very simple solution. Adopt, you wont regret it.

    1. Re:Adopt! by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      I must say that it is _completely_ ethical to discuss adoption with fertility patients. Depending on the medical issues, they can be dangerous for the mother and the fetus, draining for both parents, and hideously expensive whether or not covered by insurance. It is the doctor's role to explain the _options_ and their consequences.

      There are many equivalents. A lifestyle change can often be more effective treatment than the most extensive medication or surgery, whether it be moving to a better climate to ease asthma, moving to a less sunny climate for people with a history of skin cancer, giving up smoking, getting exercise and improving diet for someone with early diabetes, getting enough sleep, etc. Discussion of lifestyle and the medical consequences of it is part of a doctor's responsibility.

    2. Re:Adopt! by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between providing information about adoption and saying, in effect, "Hey, life is telling you not to attempt to reproduce." That is offensive.

    3. Re:Adopt! by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      I'm glad your story turned out well, but if your physician really told you, "It may be that life is giving you a hint." then he was overstepping the bounds of ethical treatment. It's none of his fucking business what you choose, his business is to listen to what you *want*, and tell you what he can *do* for you.

      The Dr. Phil homespun bullshit should be grounds for censure from the medical board.

      Our well-being was his business. He was completely correct in what he said. This is exactly the sort of discussion fertility doctors should be having. Most of the other families that went with us to Africa had already spent tens of thousands of dollars on pointless and sometime dangerous fertility treatments with disreputable fertility doctors.

      After having been through the experience, I'd even say that adoption should be the first choice for reproductively healthy couples. Within a few months your adopted child would be emotionally indistinguishable to you from a birth-child.

    4. Re:Adopt! by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between providing information about adoption and saying, in effect, "Hey, life is telling you not to attempt to reproduce." That is offensive.

      The only way that makes sense is if you see adoption as a bad thing... or a negative. That's on you... not the doctor.

    5. Re:Adopt! by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      Doctors aren't walking prescription pads that you go to after you diagnose your symptoms online. Doctors are supposed to do the best thing for you, whatever that is - what you think you want from them is obviously a very strong factor, but certainly not absolute. A physician may absolutely be taking the ethical high ground by refusing your demands - say, for antibiotics for a cold, or a medically-unnecessary amputation for apotemnophilia, or even seeing you at all if you're stupid enough to be unvaccinated by choice.

      In fact I'd say that the doctor would be remiss if he didn't bring up adoption in a discussion of options - how could he ensure that he was obtaining informed consent for whatever he ended up doing otherwise? And it's clear that he was doing the GP a great service by getting him to think about it.

      People like you who want them to be are what's wrong with medicine nowadays, frankly. We need more doctors with the stones to tell off idiots who think a doctor is a guy that hands out pills. Most people don't treat their car mechanic like that.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    6. Re:Adopt! by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      And you're still not getting it. The doctor intruded his personal view into a doctor-patient relationship. It's absolutely ethical, even obligatory for a fertility doctor to inform his patients about the cost, difficulty, and low probability of success of the services he can provide, he can also mention that adoption is another option, but the way the original poster quoted him, "It may be that life is giving you a hint." You don't seem to understand how that crosses the line.

      And far from "people like me being what's wrong with medicine these days" insisting that doctors be walking prescription pads (which I am not, and never even implied), it's people like you who don't understand the difference between what a doctor must do, and what he must *not* do, who contribute to the awful state of medicine in the U.S. because you don't understand your own obligations as a patient. I probably have more knowledge about this aspect of medicine than you do - I've been married to a doctor for 28 years.

      The original poster can be as pleased as he likes that the doctor did that, but that doesn't make it right.

  11. Implanted Womb by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Artificial wombs will follow. Soon women won't need men any more. Then the male geeks will go from having had a limited chance, to having zero hope of ever meeting a woman and having sex.

    Technically, it's the other way around: If having a biological womb you've been born with isn't a requirement for human reproduction anymore, it's the *MEN* who don't need women any more.

    The male geek could get implanted with the necessary womb to give birth to children without ever needing to meet a girl (and an advantage: in mammals, mixing male genetic material can give birth to both male and female offsprings (you have both X and Y sex chromosome to pick from) unlike when mixing female (only X available) ).

    Now, if your point is having *intercourse* with a girl, that's a different set of problems (And I would suggest that you either start working on your social skill and start go out and socialize during hobbies where you can meet potential partners) (Or I suggest to move to a country where the paid-for alternative is considered as just another kind of job (with tax, social security and insurance) rather than a crime worthy of imprisonment).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Implanted Womb by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      That is an interesting question - what if you end up with a YY chromosome pair. I wonder what would happen?

  12. Eugenics by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1, Interesting

    To many this may be considered flamebait, but it is my honest opinion and deserves discussion.

    I think that if you have serious genetic problems then you shouldn't be having children if those genetic defects are going to be passed on. Yes nobody is perfect I realise that. It just seems to me that the majority of humans are not able to think rationally when it comes to genetics/eugenics. Why am I saying this? - Because the % of the population with disabilities that require care is growing exponentially, the outcome if the issue isn't addressed is a population of invalids that can't look after themselves, is that fair on future generations? Think of the children!

    Men produce approx' 525,000,000,000 during their lifetime, should they all have a right to live?

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    1. Re:Eugenics by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      correction: "525,000,000,000 sperm" when is slashdot going to get an edit option?

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    2. Re:Eugenics by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      Two problems with your thinking:

      1 - "population with disabilities that require care is growing exponentially" This is pure bullshit. Either you know nothing about the trend of incidence of disabilities in children, or you don't know what "exponentially" means. Citation, please. Oh, and be careful if you post a reference that it not show a higher incidence only because the rate of reporting is increasing. That's bullshit too.

      2 - You didn't say what you believe "shouldn't be having children" means. Does it mean you express that opinion whenever it comes up in conversation, but do nothing about it? Does it mean you vote for politicians whose policies would deny any sort of public funding to individuals with at high risk for disabled offspring? Does it mean that you go around snipping the vas deferens of people who look "disability-like" to you? Sure, we can discuss your opinion, but first you have to state something with a shred of meaning.

      3 - (bonus problem) The comment about sperm is a pure straw man argument.

    3. Re:Eugenics by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      3) Is not a straw man argument, why should the 2 sperm that make it be allowed to live, they are no more special than the billions that didn't make it, in this particular case they are worse.

      2) Shouldn't be having children that would not survive without car and can earn their keep in society.

      1) Shout at me for not giving citation but didn't give citations yourself for your counter-argument. (I'm having a look, but I'm getting an ocean of results which don't answer the question either way).

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    4. Re:Eugenics by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      re 1: After a bit of research, I'm starting to think that I was duped by some crap article in the past. A lot of disabilities are due to environmental factors such as smoking etc and half the time the cause is unknown, leaving only 20% of disabilities at birth being due to genetic inheritance, and disabilities at birth are a small percentage of the total.

      But I still don't know now what the trend in disabilities at birth due to genetic inheritance is, got any links?

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    5. Re:Eugenics by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      2) You still didn't say anything about what "shouldn't be having children" means.

    6. Re:Eugenics by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      For something not living those sperm swim bloody well, I say they live.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    7. Re:Eugenics by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Humans are crap at being rational, they let greed, ignorance, faith, miss-placed survival instincts, trust, lust, fear etc cloud their judgements.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  13. Link to the actual article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Livebirth after uterus transplantation [PDF] (with pictures of the uterus! :-) ).

  14. Re:Overpopulated by ncc74656 · · Score: 2

    There are already too many humans on this planet. We are a virus that is wiping out life and resources at a faster rate than they can be replenished.

    If you really believe this nonsense, why haven't you done your part and killed yourself already?

    Coward.

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  15. Birthing her sister. by nbritton · · Score: 1

    Since the egg came from her mother the baby would actually be her sister, or brother.

    1. Re:Birthing her sister. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. Eggs come from the ovary, not the uterus. The woman did not get a transplant of her mother's ovary, nor did she get an implant of her mother's egg. She had her own ovaries.

  16. All You Zombies by weilawei · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the story by Heinlein, All You Zombies.

  17. birthing her own sister by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    Since the womb was donated from her mother, doesn't that make her child her sister?

    1. Re:birthing her own sister by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The source of the womb has nothing to do with the genetic material in either the egg or the sperm.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  18. Re:Ahh the Sweeds.... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    You say that like it's a bad thing :-)

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  19. Next step... by lems1 · · Score: 1

    ... "Offline". Meaning, have the wombs be stand-alone.
    That would solve the 1mm people on Mars dilemma

    --
    This sig can be distributed under the LGPL license