Comment by koolba
7 years ago
From the article (not all contiguous but related):
> A new frontier, uterus transplants are seen as a source of hope for women who cannot give birth because they were born without a uterus or had to have it removed because of cancer, other illness or complications from childbirth. Researchers estimate that in the United States, 50,000 women might be candidates.
> The transplants are meant to be temporary, left in place just long enough for a woman to have one or two children, and then removed so she can stop taking the immune-suppressing drugs needed to prevent organ rejection.
> The transplants are now experimental, with much of the cost covered by research funds. But they are expensive, and if they become part of medical practice, will probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is not clear that insurers will pay, and Dr. Testa acknowledged that many women who want the surgery will not be able to afford it.
While the science is amazing, why go this route rather than having a surrogate mother? I've heard the price of a surrogate is $30-50K.
While the science is amazing, why go this route rather than having a surrogate mother? I've heard the price of a surrogate is $30-50K.
That sounds rhetorical, but I'll bite anyway.
Some women really long for the experience of childbirth. This may not be entirely psychological. Giving birth has significant impact on a woman's physiology. In addition to changing the shape of the hips and often other details like that, it leaves a woman a chimera for many years. Because her blood and the blood of the baby mix, she carries cells from the baby for many years afterwards.
I have a genetic disorder. I have two biological sons. I was not diagnosed until they were about 12 and 14 years old, so I didn't (consciously) know about my condition at the time that I was making reproductive choices (though I did know I was always "sickly").
My first pregnancy significantly impacted how I eat. I removed a number of things from my diet to cope with my difficult pregnancy and many were never added back into my diet. I have reason to believe this did my health a lot of good. For example, it cured the chronic, sever vaginal yeast infections I had for more than two years prior that pregnancy. I never again had chronic, severe yeast infections.
I have read up a bit on pregnancy-induced chimerism and talked a bit with people online about it and talked a fair amount with my sons. I have come to think that some women long for a baby because it can have a profound impact on a woman's body in ways we don't fully understand and perhaps sometimes that longing is rooted in some subconscious awareness that going through the process of carrying a child to term may alter their body in ways that are potentially for the best.
This would be really hard to prove. We have no means to see what the biological outcome would be for the same woman with and without the pregnancy experience. But I am in remarkably good health for someone with my genetic disorder and I credit my two pregnancies with some portion of that fact.
It's not only about the woman and her body. It's also about the child and the relationship between woman and child. Our lives don't start when we leave the womb. Our first experiences are inside of it, when we are immensely close with the mother - hell, we are inside of her body. So... It's also about sharing this first experiences and about bonding with the child. Something that is not possible with a surrogate mother. Or rather, something that happens to the surrogate mother instead. I don't think that 'handing the baby over' can ever be easy for that reason.
Theres a good episode of Law and Order that deals with that issue. The plot is a surrogate mother keeping the child because she became attached to it.
The mental state of the mother while she's pregnant has a significant effect on the baby. For example if the mother has a lot of stress the baby will have symptoms of that stress years later.
Imo: that goes to show that mother and baby share feelings during the childbearing process. If negative feelings are pushed down to the baby. Then it would make sense that positive feelings are too.
That is quite interesting to hear from a woman.
Artificial wombs are coming. I was under the impression that women considered pregnancy as a burden which carries risks, is painful, causes all sorts of negative hormonal / physiological effects, etc.
I think that artificial wombs will initially be challenged by feminist and conservative groups, but will end up being accepted, first with wealthy Western women, but eventually by everyone else.
I have never considered that women might choose to carry a child, if they weren't required due to technological and scientific advances.
> I was under the impression that women considered pregnancy as a burden which carries risks, is painful, causes all sorts of negative hormonal / physiological effects, etc.
It does that, and is also something many women desire. Some thigns are both really hard and painful, and also very rewarding.
I really doubt you are going to get any challenges from feminists, or at least not very many. Feminism is all about empowering women to be able to do what they want, which includes having a baby using an artificial womb. Conservative groups might be against it, but it will depend on which group. Not all conservative groups are against IVF, which is similar in the sense that it allows a woman who would otherwise not be able to have a child have a child.
35 replies →
Some women hate it. Some feel a sense of wonder (my mother was like that, when carrying my younger brother). Some face it with resignation (that was more like my wife). My wife's biggest issues involved her blood pressure and fear about actually giving birth. One friend I have no doubt would still have carried her child naturally, even given another option. Another friend, I'm not sure about.
Carrying a child is often a very emotional experience, and it makes sense that reactions to those emotions would vary pretty wildly between different people.
Are you talking about artificial wombs that are independent of humans?
I can see feminists, evangelicals, and quite a alot of people opposing humans grown in labs.
You might be surprised to learn that there is a whole segment of the population who view bringing new lives into the world as a sacred undertaking. Some women of this persuasion consider growing a new person inside of themselves to be the highest calling. Also, pregnancy and childbirth can be incredibly fulfilling experiences, for both parents. After all, modern life doesn’t have many rights of passage on the same level.
Why exactly do you believe feminism would be against artificial wombs? (which, btw, is not even what we are talking about - these are transplanted natural wombs not artificial).
Feminism is about empowering women to make their own reproductive choices. Giving them MORE choices is a positive not a negative for feminism.
I'm a woman, and I absolutely agree with the OP. There is nothing in the world like the mother-child bond!
Sure it's risky and is painful and it makes me scared sometimes, but the thought of some artificial womb producing my baby gives me the shudders.
Would it even be "my" baby, if I didn't carry it? Similarly, I don't think I could have the same kind of love for an adopted child as for my biological. I'm sure you can love it just as much, but differently.
This reminds me of a peculiar condition my mother was suffering from. She had to consume this particular tablet everyday to keep her cough and cold at bay. When she began carrying my sister, she was told by the Gynac that she had to stop consuming the tablet as it would harm the baby. She stopped the tablet and after 3-4 days of trouble, her cough and cold problem simply disappeared. Ever since, she never had to consume the tablet again.
> Because her blood and the blood of the baby mix, she carries cells from the baby for many years afterwards.
This is not true. If the baby had AB blood and the mother had A, then the baby's blood cells would be attacked by the mother's.
It does happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemolytic_disease_of_the_newbo...
2 replies →
Do you feel it’s fair to say that women generally long for childbirth because that’s what selection pressures in the environment left us with?
I mostly think nature designed sex to feel good as a way of tricking people into getting pregnant. Most pregnancies are not planned. Two people were just trying to have a good time. You have to actively work at not getting pregnant if you want a sex life, but don't want children.
The question of longing for a baby is mostly a first world problem. In most parts of the world, they still have more traditional issues, like shot gun weddings for out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
It is sort of like saying "we crave oxygen." You only are aware of that in its absence. Otherwise, you breathe because that's what you do, not because you sit around writing odes to the wonderfulness of oxygen, oh, how I long for thee.
This is part of why people are weirded out. The default state is that women are trying like hell to not get pregnant most of the time. Then you have some weird edge case where they can't just get pregnant, you discover this matters enough to them to be willing to go to rather drastic lengths to achieve it and it flies in the face of our expectations.
Even if this question was interesting (it is not) there is no reason to think the experience of motherhood would give someone particular insight into the answer.
Wow, that sounds intense/neat. Thanks for sharing.
So you are saying that other people should bear the cost for your incredibly complex and expensive procedure because "desire".
The tax on high income earners is so high. I'm tired of paying so much for things like Uterous implants.
This is why I'm leaving this godforsaken country and will be contributing to a more free country where a man is actually valued.
#MeToo
> While the science is amazing, why go this route rather than having a surrogate mother?
Or even just adoption. Adoption is far cheaper as well.
There are plenty of reasons why people want their own biological children... but this seems like it carries a ton more risk with it. With complications from the transplant and heck even just childbirth.
Surrogacy is illegal in some places and countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy_laws_by_country
Adoption on the other hand can be a risky path, leading to a different kind of problems, and some are very hard for parents. Everybody wants their sons being healthy and able to have a normal life but this is not always guaranteed with adoption. Some countries use shady practices and lie to the parents to obtain an emotional (not logical) choice. The cheaper the worst. Systematic racketeering is the minor of them. "Forgetting" about some important condition or omiting relevant medical information is much worse.
Yes that's what I was trying to get at. The increased cost comes with significantly increased risk yet the same end result (a biological child).
It's not the same end result. There are huge psychological issues that can come up with being the genetic mother to your child but having someone else carry them for you. Then you also have to figure out how (if?) the surrogate is involved in the child's life at all, how you explain to the child that someone else birthed them, etc. If you ever find yourself favoring one child over another, you'll always wonder if it's because it's not "your" baby.
Basically, it's not as simple as just handing off an embryo to another person and 9 months later acting like nothing happened. There are huge ramifications to a decision like this that don't come with being the birth mother.
1 reply →
Adoptions in the US cost ~$40k, a lot more then the 10-15k for pregnancy.
If you are trying to import a baby, yes. The price can be considerably lower, if not free, for foster to adopt, especially for older children.
1 reply →
Countries such as France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Bulgaria prohibit all forms of surrogacy. So, this gives women in those countries the option of having a child legally.
Many, many women wish to carry their own children. Some want to do that this badly.
"Want" as in they are biologically wired to want to do so; hormones/evolution/etc.
It may or may not be simply biological "wiring". Many women are fine with surrogates, and most surrogates are fine with carrying another woman's child without significant emotional attachment. Women who use surrogates want the child, the experience doesn't matter as much as a successful birth by any method.
I think a big factor in the cases discussed in the article is that these women were told they would never ever have their own children. Unlike women who are "infertile" (which is usually just a measure of probability, and not a binary diagnosis), women who do not have a uterus obviously understand that there isn't a probability factor for getting pregnant. But then tell a woman with such a diagnosis that there is an experimental procedure that will allow her to fully experience what she had always been told was not possible. It is more for her than just wanting a baby at that point-- the procedure offers her everything she was told she could not have in terms of giving birth to a child.
Literally all of your thoughts and feelings are biologically wired.
By the same token, you can just lay off having sex, since you are just wired biologically to want it ;-)
So many wants are biologically wired...
Sure, but I don't think any insurance should ever pay for this.
This is an amazing story of progress, technology, and hope. Do you need to make it about what it costs to you, or can that discussion maybe wait for another context?
1 reply →
And they will petition the government to tax you enough to make it happen. They are doing soon.
Lucky for them there are no enforced prerequisites (i.e., test and/or license) for becoming a parent.
I don't doubt some level of that drive exists. What feels questionable is the sanity (?) of going to such extreme lengths to pursue it? As if there is a complete unawareness of the bigger picture.
>I don't doubt some level of that drive exists.
That's one hell of an understatement. It's only the primary driving force of all successful complex lifeforms. Living things that give preference to offspring other than their own die with zero remaining trace of their existence.
2 replies →
I'll go out on a limb and say if you aren't a female I don't think you are well positioned to judge a woman's judgement towards wanting her "own" baby versus using a surrogate or adopting. (I'm not a female so I have no point of view here.)
It’s not about sanity. Desire for reproduction is a biological imperative.
Let’s say you lost your testicles due to cancer, but there’s a new procedure that can grow new ones from your stem cells. It’s experimental and will cost $150,000. Before having your cancerous testes removed you stored sperm.
Are you really surprised that some men who want to be fathers would choose to have the procedure rather than using their own previously stored sperm?
Yes I'm surprised. I'd want my testicles back for other reasons maybe, but if I had stored sperm I don't see why to have an expensive operation.
Yes. In fact, much more surprised than in this case - I can at least see why would you want to have your baby grow inside you. Doing experimental surgery just so you can have fresh sperm seems absurd to me.
Shit, I'd just want my balls back so I didn't have to take shots every few weeks.
1 reply →
That's pretty much the worst example you could have come up with. Carrying a child inside of you, is no stretch of the imagination equivalent to impregnating someone the old fashioned way. No man in their right mind would put up $150,000 in experimental money, when they have their own stored semen. Sure, if none exists maybe, but doing all that just so you can use fresh? That's just silly. It's still your DNA, and you can still have sex.
I'd probably be very wary at that point of going into the hospital any more than I have to, especially for experimental treatments. I'm surprised everyone is so sanguine about things like that; you're enduring invasive surgery, and experimental methods that could easily fail and cause serious side effects. I'd only take it if the situation was dire and there was no other option.
Using it for non life-threatening issues would be putting a lot of stress and risk on myself and my body for little reason.
Well, yes I'm shocked that someone would go to great expense, risk their life, and use scarce research resources in a completely unnatural effort to do something "naturally"... but I shouldn't be.
Because rule 34... someone will get off on it.
It's not about "someone getting off on it". Having a "natural" pregnancy leads to way less issues:
Surrogate mothers have to have artificial insemination/IVF. So would the hypothetical mother in this case. These eggs don't all stick to the uterus, so the procedure normally involves sticking 3-4 fertilized eggs inside the embryo.
So if you want one kid, you need to plan to have up to 4. That's a concern.
Then there's the chance of having a chimera, where the baby uptakes the surrogate's DNA. This can cause complications (I know with a transplant this is still the case). There's also the whole "mother not carrying the baby" thing.
This isn't as crazy as it sounds.
4 replies →
I think it is incredibly cool that we can essentially move a uterus from one woman to several others.
Startup idea: Uterent™
Can you harvest(1) eggs from a woman without a uterus? I don't see how you would. To get to the ovaries of a woman without a uterus you'd need to cut her open.
(1) is that the correct terminology?
Taken a step further..why not adopt?
While impressive it feels too much like a First World Problem. Aren't there any real problems this team could have solved?
> While impressive it feels too much like a First World Problem. Aren't there any real problems this team could have solved?
Talk to any couple who has had difficulty conceiving, and the humanity of this "first world problem" gets brought into perspective.
Exactly. How can you not understand a person’s desire to have a child of their own flesh and blood? That instinct and desire is such a deep part of our biology. The people asking must be very young or have some strang sociopathy.
20 replies →
In the US the difficulty (factoring in stress, disappointment, and costs) of various options for infertile partners in ascending order:
Unfortunately "Why not adopt" is rarely the simplest option for most people.
What effect do immunosuppressors have on the fetus?
Probably well studied in pregnant moms with cancer or transplants. I would guess not a big impact as far as we know today. First there are cases where the maternal immune system attacks the fetus. Second the placenta generates immunosuppressants to prevent that, third, the fetus itself and the baby at birth does not have any innate immunity. In fact the baby relies on the moms immunity after birth.
Surrogate motherhood is a very traumatising experience.