While lung, kidney, heart and limb transplants seem to be accepted in today’s medical world why should wombs transplants be any different?
Some women face the difficulty of not being able to give birth because they are without a womb due to complications such as being born without one or having theirs removed because of cancer.
Nine women in Sweden have successfully undergone the transplant, however it is not possible to become pregnant naturally. The fallopian tubes are not connected to the womb so women have to have their eggs removed, frozen, and stored until after the transplant if they are seeking to bare biological children.
While adoption, insemination, and surrogacy are prevalent in today’s society, womb transplants may be the next “big thing”.
Bearing children and being a mother is something that the majority of women look forward to. Whether the woman goes about it in a certain way should be her and her partner’s choice. If a woman is willing to risk her health to try the procedure then it is ultimately her decision.
The procedure may seem unethical but why is a lung transplant or a kidney transplant looked at any differently?
It is true that one cannot live without lungs but it is possible to live without a kidney. Both serve a purpose just like the womb does. It may seem unethical because it is such a new procedure and it may seem more taboo because of the function, but why?
Why do we as a society judge? Or care? If it is to serve a greater purpose for another and the act does not harm the donor why should this transplant be deemed unethical?