Advertisement

Ethik in der Medizin

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 113–129 | Cite as

Uterustransplantation. Ethisch gerechtfertigt?

  • Claudia BozzaroEmail author
  • Franziska Krause
  • Melanie Weismann
Originalarbeit
  • 211 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Die Uterustransplantation ermöglicht Frauen mit einer absoluten uterinen Infertilität eine Schwangerschaft mit biologisch eigenem Kind. Das neuartige experimentelle Verfahren wirft eine Reihe von ethischen Fragen auf. Ziel dieses Artikels ist es, relevante ethische Problemkonstellationen im Kontext der Uterustransplantation überblickshaft darzulegen und kritisch zu diskutieren. Als systematischer Rahmen der Darstellung dienen die vier Prinzipien der Medizinethik Autonomie, Nicht-Schaden, Wohltun und Gerechtigkeit nach Beauchamp und Childress. Nach eingehender ethischer Betrachtung plädieren die Autorinnen mit Blick auf die Akkumulation schwerwiegender ethischer Probleme für die Notwendigkeit einer grundlegenden und umfassenden ethischen Debatte über Uterustransplantation. Ausgangspunkt einer solchen Debatte muss eine kritische Reflexion des normativen Stellenwerts des Leidens an einem unerfüllten Kinderwunsch sein.

Schlüsselwörter

Uterustransplantation Reproduktive Autonomie Leiden am unerfüllten Kinderwunsch Risiko-Nutzen Abwägung 

Is the transplant of uterus ethically acceptable?

Abstract

Problem description

For women suffering from infertility, uterus transplantation provides the possibility to become pregnant with their own child. This new experimental therapy generates several ethical questions.

Methods

With reference to the four principles of Beauchamp and Childress—autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice—we will present and critically discuss the main ethical problems related to uterus transplantation.

Conclusion

In view of the sum of ethical problems raised by uterus transplantation, we plead for a broad ethical discussion with a focus on the normative status of suffering caused by an unfulfilled desire to have a child.

Keywords

Uterus transplantation Reproductive autonomy Suffering due to the wish for a child Risk-benefit assessment 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

C. Bozzaro, F. Krause und M. Weismann geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Ethische Standards

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. Akouri R, Maalouf G, Abboud J, Waked A, Nakad T, Bedran F, Gjannam GA, Hajj P, Hanafy A, Brännström F, Merzah S, Gharhemani M, Dahm-Kähler P, Brännström M (2017) Uterus transplantation. An update on the Middle East perspective. Middle East Fertil Soc J 22(3):163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alghrani A (2016) Uterus transplantation. Does procreative liberty encompass a right to gestate? J Law Biosci 3(3):636–641.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsw048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arora KS, Blake V (2014) Uterus transplantation. Ethical and regulatory challenges. J Med Ethics 40:396–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbieri R (2015) Uterus transplantation: medical breakthrough or surgical folly. Although uterus transplantation has been proven to be feasible, is it practical or ethical? OBG Manag 27:8–12Google Scholar
  5. Bayefsky MJ, Berkman BE (2016) The ethics of allocating uterine transplants. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 25:350–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2013) Principles of biomedical ethics Bd. 7. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Beier K (2013) Reproduktive Autonomie als biopolitische Strategie. Eine Kritik des liberalen fortpflanzungsmedizinischen Diskurses aus bioethischer Perspektive. In: Finkelde D, Inthorn J, Reder M (Hrsg) Normiertes Leben. Biopolitik und die Funktionalisierung ethischer Diskurse. Campus, Frankfurt a.M., S 69–92Google Scholar
  8. Brännström M, Caiza A, Altchek A (2010) Experimental uterus transplantation. Hum Reprod Update 16(3):329–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brännström M, Diaz-Garcia C, Hanafy A, Olausson M, Tzakis A (2012) Uterus transplantation. Animal research and human possibilities. Fertil Steril 97(6):1269–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brännström M, Johannesson L, Bokström H, Kvarnström N, Mölne J, Dahn-Kähler P, Enskog A, Milenkovic M, Ekberg J, Diaz-Gracia C, Gäbel M, Hanafy A, Hagberg H, Olausson M, Nilsson L (2015) Live birth after uterus transplantation. Lancet 385:607–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brännström M, Johannesson L, Dahm-Kähler P, Enskog A, Mölne J, Kvarnström N, Diaz-Garcia C, Hanafy A, Lundmark C, Marcickiewicz J, Gäbel M, Groth K, Akouri R, Eklind S, Holgersson J, Tzakis A, Olausson M (2014) First clinical uterus transplantation trial. A six-month report. Fertil Steril 101(5):1228–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruno B, Arora KS (2018) Uterus transplantation. The ethics of using deceased vs. living donors. Am J Bioeth 18(7):6–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Catsanos R, Rogers W, Lotz M (2013) The ethics of uterus transplantation. Bioethics 27(2):65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Catsanos R, Rogers W, Lotz M (2016) The ethics of uterus transplantation. In: Kuhse H, Schüklenk U, Singer P (Hrsg) Bioethics. An anthology, 3. Aufl. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, S 91–101Google Scholar
  15. Chan C, Ng E, Ho P (2005) Ovarian changes after abdominal hysterectomy for benign conditions. J Soc Gynecol Investig 12(1):54–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Constantinescu S, Pai A, Coscia LA, Davison JM, Moritz MJ, Armenti V (2014) Breast-feeding after transplantation. Best practice & research. Clin Obstet Gynaecol 28(8):1163–1173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2014.09.001 Google Scholar
  17. Dahm-Kähler P, Diaz-Garcia C, Brännström M (2016) Human uterus transplantation in focus. Br Med Bull 117(1):69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dickens BM (2016) Legal and ethical issues of uterus transplantation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 133:125–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Favre-Inhofer A, Raffi A, Carbonnel M, Revaux A, Ayoubi J‑M (2018) Uterine transplantation. Review in human research. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 47:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Friesen P, Kearns L, Redman B, Caplan AL (2017) Rethinking the Belmont report? Am J Bioeth 17(7):15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guntam L, Williams N (2018) Positioning uterus transplantation as a “more ethical” alternative to surrogacy: exploring symmetries between uterus transplantation and surrogacy through analysis of a Swedich government white paper. Bioethics 32:509–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guntram L, Zeiler K (2016) ‘You have all those emotions inside that you cannot show because of what they will cause’. Disclosing the absence of one’s uterus and vagina. Soc Sci Med 167:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansen M, Bower C, Milne E, de Klerk N, Kurinczuk JJ (2005) Assisted reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. A systematic review. Hum Reprod 20(2):328–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hauser-Schäublin B, Kalitzkus V, Petersen I, Schröder I (2000) Der geteilte Leib. Die kulturelle Dimension von Organtransplantation und Reproduktionsmedizin in Deutschland. Campus, Frankfurt a.M. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacobs C, Gross C, Messersmith E, Hong B, Gillerspie B, Hill-Callahan P, Taler S, Jowsey S, Beebe T, Matas A, Odim J, Ibrahim H (2015) Emotional and financial experience of kidney donors over past 50 years. The RELIVE study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 10(12):2221–2231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Järvholm S, Johannesson L, Brännström M (2015a) Psychological aspects in pre-transplantation assessment of patients prior to entering the first uterus transplantation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 94:1035–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Järvholm S, Johannesson L, Clarke A, Brännström M (2015b) Uterus transplantation trial. Psychological evaluation of recipients and partners during the post-transplantation year. Fertil Steril 104(4):1010–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johannesson L, Järvholm S (2016) Uterus transplantation: current progress and future prospects. Int J Womens Health 8:43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnston J, Zacharias RL (2017) The future of reproductive autonomy. Hastings Cent Rep 47(6):6–11.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.789 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. King LP (2017) Should clinicians set limits on reproductive autonomy? Hastings Cent Rep 6:50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kisu I, Mihara M, Banno K, Umene K, Araki J, Hara H, Suganuma N, Aoki D (2013) Risks for donors in uterus transplantation. Reprod Sci 20(2):1406–1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krones T, Richter G (2008) Ärztliche Verantwortung. Das Arzt-Patient-Verhältnis. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 51:818–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krones T, Neuwohner E, El Ansari S, Wissner T, Richter G, Ethikkommission Marburg (2006) Kinderwunsch und Wunschkinder. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der In-vitro-Fertilisations-Behandlung. Ethik Med 18(1):51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lefkowitz A, Edwards M, Balayla J (2012) The Montreal criteria for the ethical feasibility of uterine transplantation. Transpl Int 25:439–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mackenzie C, Stoljar N (Hrsg) (2000) Relational autonomy. Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency and the social self. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Moorman O, Myers E, Schildkraut J, Iversen E, Wang F, Warren N (2011) Effect of hysterectomy with ovarian preservation on ovarian function. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 118(6):1271–1279Google Scholar
  37. Mumtaz Z, Shahid U, Levay A (2013) Understanding the impact of gendered roles on the experiences of infertility amongst men and women in Punjab. Reprod Health 10:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nair A, Stega J, Smith RJ, Del Priore G (2008) Uterus transplant. Evidence and ethics. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1127:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ozkan O, Akar ME, Ozkan O, Erdogan O, Hadimioglu N, Yilmaz M et al (2013) Preliminary results of the first human uterus transplant from a multiorgan donor. Fertil Steril 99(2):470–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Persad G, Wertheimer A, Emanuel E (2009) Principles for allocation of scarce medical intervention. Lancet 373:423–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Petrini C, Gainotti S, Morresi A, Costa AN (2017) Ethical issues in uterine transplantation. Psychological implications and informed consent. Transplant Proc 49:707–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rauprich O, Steger F (2005) Prinzipienethik in der Biomedizin. Moralphilosophie und medizinische Praxis. Campus, Frankfurt a.M. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Roache R (2016) Infertility and non-traditional families. J Med Ethics 42(9):557–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Robertson JA (2016) Other women’s wombs. Uterus transplants and gestational surrogacy. J Law Biosci 3(1):68–86.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsw011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Saborowski M (2006) Der „ethische Wert“ des „eigenen Kindes“. Eine Analyse der bioethischen Diskussion um ungewollte Kinderlosigkeit und Reproduktionsmedizin. Pflege Ges 11(4):306–321Google Scholar
  46. Sherwin S (1998) A relational approach to autonomy in health care. In: Sherwin S (Hrsg) The politics of women’s health. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, S 19–47Google Scholar
  47. Sickand M, Cuerden MS, Klarenbach SW, Ojo AO, Parikh CR, Boudville N et al (2009) Reimbursing live organ donors for incurred non-medical expenses: a global perspective on policies and programs. Am J Transplant 9:2825–2836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Testa G, Koon EC, Johannesson L et al (2017) Living donor uterus transplantation: a single center’s observations and lessons learned from early setbacks to technical success. Am J Transplant.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.14326 Google Scholar
  49. Tong A, Chapman JR, Wong G, Kanellis J, McCarthy G, Craig JC (2012) The motivations and experiences of living kidney donors: a thematic synthesis. Am J Kidney Dis 60(1):15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Voo TC, Koh S, Campbell AV (2016) Ethical issues in live-donor reimbursement program. Transplant Proc 48(3):742–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Whiteford LM, Gonzales L (1994) Stigma. The hidden burden of infertility. Soc Sci Med 40(1):27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. WHO (2006) Constitution of the World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf. Zugegriffen: 20. Jan. 2019Google Scholar
  53. Wiedebusch S, Reiermann S, Steinke C, Muthny FA, Pavenstädt HJ, Schöne-Seifert B, Senninger N, Suwelack B, Buyx AM (2009) Quality of life, coping, and mental health status after living kidney donation. Transplant Proc 41:1483–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wiesing U (1993) Die In-vitro-fertilisation. Vom Einfluß einer Technologie auf die ärztliche Ethik. In: Ach JS, Gaidt A (Hrsg) Herausforderungen der Bioethik. Frommann-Holzboog, Stuttgart, S 157–173Google Scholar
  55. Wilkinson S, Williams NJ (2016) Should uterus transplants be publicly funded? J Med Ethics 42:559–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Ethik und Geschichte der MedizinAlbert-Ludwigs-UniversitätFreiburgDeutschland
  2. 2.Zentrum für Seltene ErkrankungenUniversitätsklinikum HeidelbergHeidelbergDeutschland

Personalised recommendations