Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An Ethics-Informed, Comparative Analysis of Uterus Transplantation and Gestational Surrogacy for Uterine Factor Infertility in High-Income Countries

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Interest in the future, clinical implementation of uterus transplantation for uterine factor infertility was recently boosted by the demonstration of proof-of-concept for deceased uterus donation/transplantation. The ethical dimensions of living and deceased uterus transplantation are explored and addressed in the paper through their comparison to the ethical elements of an existing, legal, assisted reproduction practice in some high-income countries, i.e., gestational surrogacy. A set of six ethics lenses is used in the comparative analysis: reproductive autonomy and rights, informed choice/consent, relevant critical relational theories, health equity, theoretical application of the accepted living donation standard, and comparative benefits and burdens considerations. Gestational surrogacy, as currently practiced in some high-income countries, is the assumed, theoretical base-threshold for determination of ethical acceptability in assisted reproduction practices. The analysis demonstrates that (at the present time): 1) the ethical acceptability of living uterus donation/transplantation is less than that of gestational surrogacy in high-income countries, and 2) the ethical acceptability of deceased uterus donation/transplantation is roughly equivalent to that of gestational surrogacy. This leads to the conclusion that, at the present time, only one version of uterus transplantation practice, i.e., deceased uterus transplantation, should be considered ethically acceptable for possible clinical implementation in high-income countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arora, K.S., and V. Blake. 2014. Uterus transplantation: Ethical and regulatory challenges. Journal of Medical Ethics 40: 396-400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balayla, J. 2016. Uterine transplants in the Canadian setting: A theoretical framework. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Canada 38(10): 955-960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayefsky, M.J., and B.E. Berkman. 2016. The ethics of allocating uterine transplants. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 25: 350-365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beland, D. and A. Zarzeczny. 2018. Medical tourism and national health care systems: An institutionalist research agenda. Globalization and Health 14(1): 68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, V.K. 2018. Financing uterus transplants: The United States context. Bioethics 32(8): 527-533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal-Barby, J.S. 2012. Between reason and coercion: Ethically permissible influence in health care and health policy contexts. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 22(4): 345–366.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brannstrom, M., L. Johannesson, H. Bokstrom, et al. 2015 Livebirth after uterus transplantation. The Lancet 385(9968): 607-616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catsanos, R., W. Rogers, and M. Lotz. 2013. The ethics of uterus transplantation. Bioethics 27(2): 65-73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavaliere, G., and C. Palacios-Gonzalez. 2018. Lesbian motherhood and mitochondrial replacement techniques: Reproductive freedom and genetic kinship. Journal of Medical Ethics 44(12): 835-842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dar, S., T. Lazer, S. Swanson, et al. 2015. Assisted reproduction involving gestational surrogacy: An analysis of the medical, psychosocial and legal issues–experience from a large surrogacy program. Human Reproduction 30(2): 345-352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, T., and K. Devolder. 2019. A conception of genetic parenthood. Bioethics 33(1): 54-59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ejzenberg, D., W. Andraus, L.R.B.C. Mendes, et al. 2018. Livebirth after uterus transplantation from a deceased donor in a recipient with uterine infertility. The Lancet 392(10165): 2697-2704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, R.M., and T. Falcone. 2015. Uterine transplant: New medical and ethical considerations. The Lancet 385(9968): 581-582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golombok, S., J. Readings, L. Blake, et al. 2011. Families created through surrogacy: Mother-child relationships and children’s psychological adjustment at age 7. Developmental Psychology 47(6): 1579-1588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guntram, L., and N.J. Williams. 2018. Positioning uterus transplantation as a “more ethical” alternative to surrogacy: Exploring symmetries between uterus transplantation and surrogacy through analysis of a Swedish government white paper. Bioethics 32(8): 509-518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, J.K.M. 2010. Revisiting child-based objections to commercial surrogacy. Bioethics 26(7): 341-347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, J. 2013. Ethically-informed, pragmatic conditions for organ donation after cardiocirculatory death: Could they assist in policy development. The Journal of Clinical Ethics 24(4): 373-380.

  • ———. 2014. Transnational Gestational Surrogacy: Does it have to be exploitative? American Journal of Bioethics 14(5): 24-32.

  • Koplin, J.J. 2018. Commodification and human interests. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 15(3): 429-440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavoue, V., C. Vigneau, S. Duros, et al. 2017. Which donor for uterus transplants: Brain-dead donor or living donor? A systematic review. Transplantation 101(2): 267-273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotz, M. 2018. Uterus transplantation as radical reproduction: Taking the adoption alternative more seriously. Bioethics 32(8): 499-508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macklin, R. 1988. Is there anything wrong with surrogate motherhood: An ethical analysis. In Surrogate motherhood: Politics and privacy, edited by L. Gostin, 136–150. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, American Societies of Law & Medicine.

  • Maung, H.H. 2019. Is infertility a disease and does it matter? Bioethics 33(1): 43-53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McTernan, E. 2018. Uterus transplants and the insufficient value of gestation. Bioethics 32(8): 481-488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donovan, L. 2018. Pushing the boundaries: Uterine transplantation and the limits of reproductive autonomy. Bioethics 32(8): 489-498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olausson, M., L. Johannesson, D. Brattgard, et al. 2014. Ethics of uterus transplantation with live donors. Fertility and Sexuality 102(1): 40-43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Robledillo, N., and L. Moya-Albiol. 2016. Gestational surrogacy: Psychosocial aspects. Psychosocial Intervention 25(3): 187-193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandman, L. 2018. The importance of being pregnant: On the healthcare need for uterus transplantation. Bioethics 32(8): 519-526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, M.E., and F.R. Ward. 2018. Uterus transplantation: A step too far. American Journal of Bioethics 18(7): 36-37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spital, A. 2004. Donor benefit is the key to justified organ donation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 13(1): 105-109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spivack, C. 2009. The law of surrogate motherhood in the United States. The American Journal of Comparative Law 58(S1): 97-114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertheimer, A. 1996. Exploitation and commercial surrogacy. Denver University Law Review 74(4): 1215–1229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, S. 2000. Commodification arguments for legal prohibition of organ sale. Health Care Analysis 8(2): 189-201.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, S., and N.J. Williams. 2016. Should uterine transplants be publicly funded? Journal of Medical Ethics 42(9): 559-656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, N.J. 2018. On harm thresholds and living organ donation: Must the living donor benefit, on balance, from his donation? Medical Health Care and Philosophy 21(1): 11-22.

  • Williams-Jones, B. 2002. Commercial surrogacy and the redefinition of motherhood. Journal of Philosophy, Science and Law 2(2): 1-16.

  • Young, I.M. 1990. Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioethics, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, C-315 – 5849 University Avenue, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4H7, Canada

    Jeffrey Kirby

Authors
  1. Jeffrey Kirby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey Kirby.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kirby, J. An Ethics-Informed, Comparative Analysis of Uterus Transplantation and Gestational Surrogacy for Uterine Factor Infertility in High-Income Countries. Bioethical Inquiry 18, 417–427 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-021-10114-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-021-10114-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation