Swedish Doctors Successfully Transplant Wombs Into 9 Women

Next step: implanting embryos

  • Share
  • Read Later

Like TIME on Facebook for more breaking news and current events from around the globe!

A team of doctors in Sweden has successfully transplanted wombs into nine women, who will try and make medical history by becoming pregnant.

The women, mostly in their 30s, who were either born without a uterus or had it removed because of cancer, are part of the first major experiment to see if a woman with a transplanted uterus can become pregnant and give birth to the child. The women received wombs donated from relatives. Women from two previous womb transplant attempts–in Turkey and Saudi Arabia–both failed to carry a baby.

Scientists in several countries are working on similar operations, but the Swedish group is the most advanced, the AP reports. Dr. Mats Brannstrom, chair of the obstetrics and gynecology department at the University of Gothenburg, will hold a workshop next month on how to perform womb transplants and publish their findings.

The Swedish medical team will next try to transfer embryos into the transplanted uteri, possibly within months. If successful, the uteri will be removed after two pregnancies so the women can stop taking anti-rejection drugs. “This is a new kind of surgery,” Brannstrom told the AP. “We have no textbook to look at.”

[AP]

6 comments
vmtime
vmtime

So transplanting an organ (uterus) into a woman born without one is repulsive because nature has determined that they are not fit to procreate...So someone with a diagnosis of heart failure should accept that nature has determined they are no longer fit to live and not seek the life saving treatment of heart (another organ) transplantation? That if they do they become a Frankenstein monster for allowing another person's organ give them life or carry a child? The world has many people who live in poverty and lack medical care so should those who are ill not seek treatment and die so that more resources are available for others? 


 

MartinHarvey
MartinHarvey

This is repulsive. There are 7 billion human beings on the planet. We have finite resources and a vast portion of our world's population lives in abject poverty and hunger. If nature says you can't yourself procreate, perhaps you should listen instead of becoming a Frankenstein's monster in which to gestate a fetus inside another person's womb, serving as nothing but a power-plant and food source for this fetus. This is a gross distortion of motherhood and life. If adoption isn't your thing, then accept that you are not fit, as determined by nature, to procreate.

ghhshirley
ghhshirley

@smazum2 @vmtime The same could be said of corneas yet we transplant them all the time. It is a quality of life issue.

vmtime
vmtime

@smazum2

I could have made a comparison to any organ because the issue I was commenting on was not what the organ would do, nor whether it was particularly life sustaining, but the argument presented that a woman should accept that NATURE has already determined that she is not fit to procreate because it choose not to bless her with a uterus.  That we, as a society, should not try to correct that by transplanting a uterus to enable her to have a child.   I was commenting that applying the same logic to other organs(whatever their purpose) would imply that everyone who needs a transplanted organ should not choose transplantation, rather, they should accept  that NATURE has already decided they are not fit to either live or have a better quality of life as demonstrated by the fact that their organ is missing or damaged in some way.  Smazum2 further justifies his position by stating that there are many humans on this planet, there are finite resources in the world, and many people are hungry and living in poverty so, presumably, the defective woman should not try to procreate with a transplanted uterus for the good of humanity.  The trouble is you get the same outcome if we told people no one should choose transplantation and they should be resigned to their fate as nature decreed it.  Eventually, and sooner rather than later,  there would be one less person sucking up resources in the world just as if you didn't add another person to the world by procreating with a transplanted organ.  It is a specious argument.

thegreybiscuit
thegreybiscuit

Sure. I am trying to point out to vmtime that he/she is making a comparison between apples and oranges. He/she should have used something more appropriate (cornea transplant) as example, instead of heart transplant.