# Womb transplants



## Squiggly (Sep 20, 2013)

So, just in case you can't see the link. The news is that nine uteruses have been successfully transplanted, though none have yet led to a successful pregnancy. Presumably, it is only a matter of time. Since tubes have not been joined up (presumably this would add to the risks?), the only way of attaining pregnancy would be through IVF.

The main issue for the medical establishment seems to be that it is a large risk and a uterus transplant cannot be considered live-saving. Therefore, is the risk worthwhile?

Is this a way forward for women whose main fertility barrier is the uterus itself, such as severe adenomyosis, women who have had to remove their uterus due to cancer, were born without a uterus or who have other major abnormalities?

Is it really worth surgically placing a uterus which will be removed afterwards? Is surrogacy not a better, safer option?

Love to hear your thoughts.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sweden-surgeons-successfully-perform-nine-womb-transplants-1432089

/links


----------



## Cloudy (Jan 26, 2012)

A woman gave birth to a baby last year following a womb transplant:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26331-womb-transplant-old-uterus-as-good-as-a-20yearolds.html

The story was also on the DM website, but I cant stand them so have posted the NS link instead 

I think given the amount of hysterectomies that happen, its a good option for an otherwise 'waste' item. Besides, there arent many surrogates, and in certain parts of the world surrogacy is quite a tricky issue to navigate, so the womb transplant is definately going to be preferable for a lot of ladies. As someone with a rubbish womb i would happily have a healthy womb transplanted if it gave me the chance of having a healthy child: besides i will need another lap or two and a hysterectomy before long anyway, so this type of operation wouldn't be much different (other than the obvious additional risks of rejection etc).

xxx

This post contains an unconfirmed link/information and readers are reminded that FertilityFriends.co.uk or its owners are not responsible for the content of external internet sites


----------



## K jade (Aug 11, 2013)

no, i don't believe surrogacy is better. 
if modern medicine has brought us womb transplants that is a brilliant thing 
it will  allow a woman to have the full experience of pregnancy, which many women want 
also many women who have used a surrogate don't want the hassle of having to explain this to their child. they just want to leave IF behind them and move on. 
same with people who have to use donors. no one wants to have to deal with the fall out of telling their children. it can be a heavy burden to carry. 

lets hope fertility medicine keeps developing to help us all so no one has to use third party reproduction. 
that being said, i think surrogates are AMAZING people.


----------



## bombsh3ll (Apr 19, 2012)

I'd have one! Experiencing pregnancy & birth wasn't a concern for me I just wanted a child, it's the cost of surrogacy plus finding one in a country that prohibits advertising that would be the main barrier for me.

I hope this becomes a real option for women soon. It may not be life saving but it is life giving, & certainly more worthy than all the boob jobs & gastric bands!

B xxx


----------



## Squiggly (Sep 20, 2013)

Thanks for your thoughts. All valuable points. Especially like bombsh3ll's "It may not be life saving but it is life giving".  To me it feels like an extra barrier when there are already so many barriers (financial as well as physical), but emotionally it would feel so much better to carry your own child if you could. I wonder if there are added risks during pregnancy? Time will tell.


----------

