Phoebe Arslanagić-Little: If a womb transplant can help a woman have a baby, we should celebrate not criticise
Every delay has consequences.
Phoebe Arslanagić-Little is Head of Social Policy at the think tank Onward.
Medical science’s ability to help people have children has been improving for a long time.
The IVF birth rate per embryo transferred in the UK hit 29 per cent in 2023 from just 7 per cent in 1991 and new innovations are being developed to significantly improve that number.
Treatments for women who suffer recurrent miscarriages have become more effective. The drug mix we use in epidurals has evolved so that labouring women who use one are more able to move around. We are better at saving the lives of premature babies. Last week we learnt that a woman called Grace Bell, born without a womb, gave birth to a baby son. This was only possible for Grace because she received a womb transplant from a dead donor.
All these developments, and very many others not named, are responsible for a great deal of new life, for families started and families made whole. But, especially on some parts of the British right, there is increasing disquiet about reproductive technology.
Undeniably there are serious ethical questions at hand.
Perhaps the clearest examples are those raised by commercial surrogacy. Not legal in the UK, British couples are nevertheless going abroad for the chance to pay a woman to carry a child for them. It is hard to think of a legal regime that can adequately protect everyone involved in a transaction of this kind, from the surrogate mother to the couple to the child, and I am not convinced that one exists.
But even in reaction to the story of Grace Bell there was strong criticism that the organ transplant that enabled her to have her child had taken place, including from former MP Miriam Cates and writer Jo Bartosch.
One argument made against the transplanted wombs is that, even though an organ taken from a consenting dead donor entails no risk of exploitation, we are inevitably on a slippery slope towards both pressure upon living women to give up their wombs and organised criminal exploitation.
Of course, it is a terrible truth that organ trafficking and harvesting is a real global phenomenon. But would any of us seriously give the existence of the illegal organ trade as a reason that we should not receive a heart, liver or kidney from a willing organ donor in the UK? Cates argues a transplanted womb is a special case distinct from typical organ donation because it is not necessary to save someone’s life – does that mean she opposes other organ donations that are not life saving, such as cornea transplants?
Significantly more commonly used reproductive technologies like IVF and egg donation have also attracted increased criticism in recent years. When the capped compensation that women who donate their eggs receive in the UK was raised from £750 to £985, an …
Every delay has consequences.
Phoebe Arslanagić-Little is Head of Social Policy at the think tank Onward.
Medical science’s ability to help people have children has been improving for a long time.
The IVF birth rate per embryo transferred in the UK hit 29 per cent in 2023 from just 7 per cent in 1991 and new innovations are being developed to significantly improve that number.
Treatments for women who suffer recurrent miscarriages have become more effective. The drug mix we use in epidurals has evolved so that labouring women who use one are more able to move around. We are better at saving the lives of premature babies. Last week we learnt that a woman called Grace Bell, born without a womb, gave birth to a baby son. This was only possible for Grace because she received a womb transplant from a dead donor.
All these developments, and very many others not named, are responsible for a great deal of new life, for families started and families made whole. But, especially on some parts of the British right, there is increasing disquiet about reproductive technology.
Undeniably there are serious ethical questions at hand.
Perhaps the clearest examples are those raised by commercial surrogacy. Not legal in the UK, British couples are nevertheless going abroad for the chance to pay a woman to carry a child for them. It is hard to think of a legal regime that can adequately protect everyone involved in a transaction of this kind, from the surrogate mother to the couple to the child, and I am not convinced that one exists.
But even in reaction to the story of Grace Bell there was strong criticism that the organ transplant that enabled her to have her child had taken place, including from former MP Miriam Cates and writer Jo Bartosch.
One argument made against the transplanted wombs is that, even though an organ taken from a consenting dead donor entails no risk of exploitation, we are inevitably on a slippery slope towards both pressure upon living women to give up their wombs and organised criminal exploitation.
Of course, it is a terrible truth that organ trafficking and harvesting is a real global phenomenon. But would any of us seriously give the existence of the illegal organ trade as a reason that we should not receive a heart, liver or kidney from a willing organ donor in the UK? Cates argues a transplanted womb is a special case distinct from typical organ donation because it is not necessary to save someone’s life – does that mean she opposes other organ donations that are not life saving, such as cornea transplants?
Significantly more commonly used reproductive technologies like IVF and egg donation have also attracted increased criticism in recent years. When the capped compensation that women who donate their eggs receive in the UK was raised from £750 to £985, an …
Phoebe Arslanagić-Little: If a womb transplant can help a woman have a baby, we should celebrate not criticise
Every delay has consequences.
Phoebe Arslanagić-Little is Head of Social Policy at the think tank Onward.
Medical science’s ability to help people have children has been improving for a long time.
The IVF birth rate per embryo transferred in the UK hit 29 per cent in 2023 from just 7 per cent in 1991 and new innovations are being developed to significantly improve that number.
Treatments for women who suffer recurrent miscarriages have become more effective. The drug mix we use in epidurals has evolved so that labouring women who use one are more able to move around. We are better at saving the lives of premature babies. Last week we learnt that a woman called Grace Bell, born without a womb, gave birth to a baby son. This was only possible for Grace because she received a womb transplant from a dead donor.
All these developments, and very many others not named, are responsible for a great deal of new life, for families started and families made whole. But, especially on some parts of the British right, there is increasing disquiet about reproductive technology.
Undeniably there are serious ethical questions at hand.
Perhaps the clearest examples are those raised by commercial surrogacy. Not legal in the UK, British couples are nevertheless going abroad for the chance to pay a woman to carry a child for them. It is hard to think of a legal regime that can adequately protect everyone involved in a transaction of this kind, from the surrogate mother to the couple to the child, and I am not convinced that one exists.
But even in reaction to the story of Grace Bell there was strong criticism that the organ transplant that enabled her to have her child had taken place, including from former MP Miriam Cates and writer Jo Bartosch.
One argument made against the transplanted wombs is that, even though an organ taken from a consenting dead donor entails no risk of exploitation, we are inevitably on a slippery slope towards both pressure upon living women to give up their wombs and organised criminal exploitation.
Of course, it is a terrible truth that organ trafficking and harvesting is a real global phenomenon. But would any of us seriously give the existence of the illegal organ trade as a reason that we should not receive a heart, liver or kidney from a willing organ donor in the UK? Cates argues a transplanted womb is a special case distinct from typical organ donation because it is not necessary to save someone’s life – does that mean she opposes other organ donations that are not life saving, such as cornea transplants?
Significantly more commonly used reproductive technologies like IVF and egg donation have also attracted increased criticism in recent years. When the capped compensation that women who donate their eggs receive in the UK was raised from £750 to £985, an …
0 Comments
0 Shares
34 Views
0 Reviews
