How Do We Judge Medical Harm?
Doctors are planning to perform the first uterus transplant in a woman desiring the surgery so she can have a baby, not to save her life. This strikes me as moving onto dangerous ground where doctors reduce themselves from professionals into technicians.
Medical professionals have responsibilities, for example and perhaps most famously, to do no harm. They have patients, to whom they owe fiduciary duties if solemn trust. Yet, this transplant could cause death, serious side effects, the and if there is a pregnancy and the organ fails, the death of mother and fetus.
Technicians, on the other hand, have lower standards--primarily those dictated by the marketplace--and they have customers. "Choice" and fulfilling desires become the ruling paradigm.
And this is where I see medicine devolving from the professional who refuses to harm patients, to the technician who supplies market demand and justifies every procedure by the excuse, "It's what he or she wants."
It ain't good.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 2:09 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
Okay, I've read the article you linked and then one in CNN, in which the author states that the risks might be substantial, but "not life-threatening." This is a situation in which, in order to allow a woman to experience a prenancy, it sounds like there will be a very substantial likelihood of miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth, or an abortion to protect the mother or avoid the birth of a disabled baby -- and this is brushed aside as a not particularly relevant issue; a baby being intentionally created in an situation with an extremely high risk of not making it (which is different than abortion, when the baby's conception was unintentional) is subjugated to the greater goal of "choice" and "medical progress". Argh1
I'm not crazy about IVF to begin with - there are a lot of risks and I don't feel that the fertility field is doing enough to keep potential mothers well-informed, and it can take a very long time to conceive a baby, with much emotional trauma caused by repeated miscarriages until a final success - and this is where I feel the medical community is taking advantage.
It's dangerous to the mother, to any small people she helps create, and to the emotional well-being of all parties involved. If this fails then she has to deal with that trauma, too.
Don't blow my statements out of proportion - a woman who wants to be a mother certainly has the right to try, or the right to a speedy, legal, and safe adoption - but she should be completely informed of all inherent risks and should be of a strong enough constitution to handle all the potential set-backs.
I'll admit to not having read the article in detail, so call me lazy but...
Where are they getting the uterus from?
A cadaver, or what?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home