The Wisdom of the Coming Womb Transplant
Doctors are preparing to implant a uterus into a woman in the hope that she can have children. But is this ethical and wise? Usually, organs are transplanted to save lives, which is worth the risk of dying in surgery and having to spend a lifetime taking immune-suppressing drugs. But this is an entirely elective procedure that is putting the patient's life at risk (and perhaps her baby's if she becomes pregnant), and may cause the woman great harm in coming years. Yes, she wants the chance to have natural children, and is willing to take the risk. But is that is all that is necessary to make a serious surgery ethical? Does patient mere desire trump a doctor's obligation to do no harm?
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 4:53 PM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
Indeed. But this is even more serious than a face lift or liposuction. People have died having liposuction.
This is what I want to have people comment on. An organ transplant is a very serious surgery, plus the lifetime of immune rejection drugs. Plus, the pregnancy might not work or lead to problems.
Does the understandable desire to have children mean that we should do everything to accomodate it? Some bioethicists speak of a fundamental right to parent. Really?
And if that is so, is patient desire alone to justify any surgery? How about the "amputee wannabes" that I have referenced before. Is their obsession to have limbs removed something that doctors should be allowed to accomodate just because the patient really, really wants it?
We are in danger of "choice" trumping all.
If I were a doctor, I would refuse this surgery. The potential for harm is high. Desiring to be a parent, in my view, is insufficient for a doctor to put a patient at material risk. At least, that is how I see it.
I agree. In order to preserve a high standard or return to it among doctors and their preservation of life, and in keeping with the Hippocratic oath they should not perform dangerous and unnecessary surgeries on human life. But instead many doctors are required to participate in abortions.
Raskolnikov - I don't believe doctors are required to perform abortions. Performing abortions is a matter of choice for the doctors.
re: the womb transplants
I think this touches on several veins:
1. treating medicine as an elective commodity (i.e., cosmetic surgery)
2. The right to be parent - I believe it is fundamental, but like ALL fundamental rights, it is not absolute.
3. weighing the benefits - both social and personal
For the last, we don't know enough to weigh in on this person's particular situation. Perhaps, there is tremendous psychological value in becoming a parent. I'd let her doctor evaluate that.
For social pros/cons - Yes, there are a lot of risks to herself and a potential child, for after all, her immuno-rejection drugs might impact the child. Plus, there are millions of children available for adoption, so I don't think the social benefits are all that great.
But, as a civil libertarian, I do respect her right to do this. That said, I think it's an elective procedure and public funds should not pay for it.
In some senses, medicine is becoming a trade rather than a profession. This is an example, I think.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home