Uterine Transplant

[Xittenn]

I asked my Doctor last week if he could put me on the list for a Uterine Transplant. I told him it was my hopes that by bringing it up now I would be in a better position to receive such a surgery, should the surgery gain some mainstream availability. The problem is that I am now thirty-two and it may be quite some time before this could happen.

 

I'm just wondering if anybody has any foreknowledge about this sort of thing. Is forty-five too old to have a surgery like this? I hadn't wanted to have children until in my mid-forties so really it isn't a terrible inconvenience and I will probably adopt should I be with a husband and am settled. I mean they give really old people hearts and stuff . . . . .

 

I also thought this was an interesting topic and any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated and I am hoping for some insightful opinions and so on!

[Psycho]

The risk of down syndrome significantly increases depending on maternal age, being:

 

1:384 at age 35

1:112 at age 40

1:28 at age 45

1:12 at age 49

 

Though at later stages of life IVF maybe an optimal choice and then this could be screen for pre-implantation.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Psycho

[Xittenn]

But these concerns could be obviated away by prenatal screening, although the risks do suggest that maybe I should live and let go.

 

I know how hard it is and how emotionally draining it can be to be born different and with disability. I guess for me some of the importance and significance of my having a baby is feeling normal and letting go of some of the pain I have felt from being observably different and incapable of what is normal animal function. I mean fungus can sexually reproduce and where I simply have never been capable. It would be a pretty shitty reason to in turn bring a child who has more functional problems than myself into the world!

 

Thanks for making me aware of this. My Doctor hadn't really discussed the idea much with me, we will be discussing it in our next appointment. I know little with regard to medicine.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Xittenn

[Psycho]

But these concerns could be obviated away by prenatal screening, although the risks do suggest that maybe I should live and let go.

Indeed this is true, this is done through an amniocentesis which has its own risk of miscarriage of 1:100 (1%) however, it is highly recommended in women over 35 and standard procedure due to the increased risks of chromosomal abnormalities.

[Xittenn]

The age risk factors would probably be with regard to the age of the donor, would it not? The egg would not be mine, and so given my body is supplying the proper nutrients, mitosis should be dependent on the age of the donor egg. I'm not clear as to what causes Down Syndrome and why age affects the probability of it occurring.

 

Anti-rejection medication might also have health impacts on the developing child, but I am unaware of what these also might be.

[Psycho]

The age risk factors would probably be with regard to the age of the donor, would it not? The egg would not be mine, and so given my body is supplying the proper nutrients, mitosis should be dependent on the age of the donor egg. I'm not clear as to what causes Down Syndrome and why age affects the probability of it occurring.

 

Anti-rejection medication might also have health impacts on the developing child, but I am unaware of what these also might be.

This is true that the eggs of the donor would be younger and age of the eggs in the ovum is thought to be one of the main contributing factors of trisomy 13 (the cause of down syndrome), down syndrome is caused by a defect in the eggs DNA that means there are to many copies of chromosome 13, rather than being a problem with mitosis.

 

I can't think of any specific problems with anti-rejection medication however it does weaken your immune system so this may be a problem, you would have to talk to your doctor about the specific prescription you are taking and the effects of it.

[Genecks]

I'm reading about an article published in the March-April 2011 issue of the "Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology"

 

Seems like individuals who have the implant need the immunosuppressants to prevent rejeciton.

Afterward, they are still needed to prevent the immune system from attacking the thing (perhaps the immune system is what led to original necrosis of the first uterus).

 

Looks like the immunosuppressants are useful for keeping the implant and maintaining it (not out of rejection in the latter sense, but to prevent the immune system from attacking whatever markers are on the typical human uterus). So, it seems like the problem is the immune system that you have. In short, you are naturally immune to pregnancy, it would appear. Canny, really. I suspect that's an evolutionary fluke, but I keep reading that odd evolutionary adaptions keep coming about in species to prevent pregnancy. The one you have did not seem to pan out for survival and reproduction.

 

But, alas, modern science.

 

If the issue is your immune system, then you would more than likely have to be on some kind of immunosuppressants while hoping to give birth.

Which might cause problems with pregnancy or keeping the baby around 9 months, and might ruin the child's immune system.

 

Hmm.. Conundrum.

I wonder if you would be better off getting AIDs (destroy your immune system), getting the implant, genetically engineering your child to be resistant to AIDs (cd4 receptor knock-out, I think), giving birth to this mutant child, and then taking out your CD4 receptors also (painful procedure). You'd soon lose the utereus, though.

 

Probably in the process of genetically engineering the child, you would want the child to not have the same defect as you.

 

Hmm.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Genecks

[Xittenn]

It is to my understanding that future attempts made will involve a short term transplant. The transplant will only take place for the duration of the pregnancy, and the uterus would be removed afterward.

 

Several attempts have been made and have failed so far. There is belief that the failure was actually caused by insufficient blood flow and new techniques are being evaluated to prevent this.

 

The idea of destroying the human immune system is a bit off topic but is something I have been thinking about lately. I guess this is another example of our natural immune system working against us. Maybe someday this might be the case where we will voluntarily have our natural immune systems destroyed, and replaced by something synthetic!

[Psycho]

I'm reading about an article published in the March-April 2011 issue of the "Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology"

 

Seems like individuals who have the implant need the immunosuppressants to prevent rejeciton.

Afterward, they are still needed to prevent the immune system from attacking the thing (perhaps the immune system is what led to original necrosis of the first uterus).

 

Looks like the immunosuppressants are useful for keeping the implant and maintaining it (not out of rejection in the latter sense, but to prevent the immune system from attacking whatever markers are on the typical human uterus). So, it seems like the problem is the immune system that you have. In short, you are naturally immune to pregnancy, it would appear. Canny, really. I suspect that's an evolutionary fluke, but I keep reading that odd evolutionary adaptions keep coming about in species to prevent pregnancy. The one you have did not seem to pan out for survival and reproduction.

 

But, alas, modern science.

 

If the issue is your immune system, then you would more than likely have to be on some kind of immunosuppressants while hoping to give birth.

Which might cause problems with pregnancy or keeping the baby around 9 months, and might ruin the child's immune system.

I don't quite understand your point, you have to be on immunosuppressants all your life if you have any form of organ transplant (except in the eye) to stop rejection of the foreign organ due to non-native cell markers.

 

I wonder if you would be better off getting AIDs (destroy your immune system), getting the implant, genetically engineering your child to be resistant to AIDs (cd4 receptor knock-out, I think), giving birth to this mutant child, and then taking out your CD4 receptors also (painful procedure). You'd soon lose the utereus, though.

The CD4 receptors are very important in T-cell activation, knocking them out would destroy the child's adaptive immune system before they are born, while making them immune to HIV it would also for all intents and purposes give them similar symptoms to AIDS. That is ignoring the ethical issues of genetically modifying human embryos and the technicality of this.

 

How would you plan on making a knock out mutation of the CD4 receptor in vitro in a fully functioning human, as this isn't actually possible.

 

This is forgetting the fact that once you have AIDS, a disease which takes 10 years to occur after HIV infection, you would be susceptible to all kinds of normally harmless bacteria and would probably die of septicaemia (the average life expectancy for someone with AIDS without treatment being 9.2 months) while pregnant unless you decided to live in a sterile field for 2-3 years, but don't worry you can just take the antiretroviral therapy (HAART), oh wait, it causes birth defects. Not to mention purposely giving yourself HIV probably voids your health insurance.

 

The idea of destroying the human immune system is a bit off topic but is something I have been thinking about lately. I guess this is another example of our natural immune system working against us. Maybe someday this might be the case where we will voluntarily have our natural immune systems destroyed, and replaced by something synthetic!

It isn't the immune system working against us, it is the immune system doing exactly what it evolved to do, stopping foreign objects being inside us, as in nearly all cases apart from transplant surgery, a highly unnatural and crude process (in biochemical and genetic terms), any foreign organism living inside us is taking our nutrients and most likely only out for one thing, itself.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Psycho

[Moontanman]

I asked my Doctor last week if he could put me on the list for a Uterine Transplant. I told him it was my hopes that by bringing it up now I would be in a better position to receive such a surgery, should the surgery gain some mainstream availability. The problem is that I am now thirty-two and it may be quite some time before this could happen.

 

I'm just wondering if anybody has any foreknowledge about this sort of thing. Is forty-five too old to have a surgery like this? I hadn't wanted to have children until in my mid-forties so really it isn't a terrible inconvenience and I will probably adopt should I be with a husband and am settled. I mean they give really old people hearts and stuff . . . . .

 

I also thought this was an interesting topic and any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated and I am hoping for some insightful opinions and so on!

 

 

Xittenn, I know there is an impetus to have your own child but there are a lot of children that need to be adopted...

[Genecks]

I don't quite understand your point, you have to be on immunosuppressants all your life if you have any form of organ transplant (except in t..

 

My point was that the transplant served it's purpose after giving birth, so the person can then allow it to decay and be rejected.

 

 

Anyway, the whole process seems seriously dangerous and life-threatening. I'm not sure what such a survival rate is. It could possibly become a situation where you give birth to the child but die in the process. Consider that there would be lots of possible infections during the birth-giving process. And since the immune system is down, you would be prone to serious infection.

 

The lack of studies with such a scenario makes me predict that you would have a high chance of dying during such a procedure.

 

Otherwise, I'd have to agree that adopting a young child may be more practical in this situation. I'm sure you'd make a great mom.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Genecks

[pantheory]

I asked my Doctor last week if he could put me on the list for a Uterine Transplant. I told him it was my hopes that by bringing it up now I would be in a better position to receive such a surgery, should the surgery gain some mainstream availability. The problem is that I am now thirty-two and it may be quite some time before this could happen.

 

I'm just wondering if anybody has any foreknowledge about this sort of thing. Is forty-five too old to have a surgery like this? I hadn't wanted to have children until in my mid-forties so really it isn't a terrible inconvenience and I will probably adopt should I be with a husband and am settled. I mean they give really old people hearts and stuff . . . . .

 

I also thought this was an interesting topic and any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated and I am hoping for some insightful opinions and so on!

For your wishes as you have explained them I don't think a Uterine Transplant is the right option for you. I think you need to go to an in-vitro clinic and have a number of your eggs removed over a period of several months. You can have these eggs cryogenically preserved until you are ready to have children. You could then have the eggs fertilized by your husband, boy friend, or sperm donor, or you could wait until you are ready and then have the eggs fertilized. At that time you could hire a surrogate to carry your baby through pregnancy to delivery. I think this is the best option if you do not wish to have children in your 30's. There are more risks for both you and the baby if you are 40 years of age or older before you get pregnant, and a lot more possible complications and risks with a Uterine transplant for both you having one or more babies. Also the cost would probably be very high.

 

You also would never have to deal with birth control when you are not ready to have children yet. And of course adoption could be a great choice too that would not require the same financial burdens of medical procedures.

//

//

Edited November 15, 2011 by pantheory