Any Opinions???

[Guest hmsdread]

Hi all,

 

So I've been trying to keep up with recent scientific/medical breakthroughs, for my own interest and of course the soon to be here med school interviews . The Globe and Mail carried an article a little while ago describing the first human uterus transplant. While it didn't last too long (only 99 days), this is certainly a big first step. The writer of the article interviewed an ethicist from McGill on her opinion of the transplant, and she was (IMHO) quite right for stating that this is really no different than a heart or liver transplant, in that the uterus is not reproductive tissue. Rather, it is simply a vehicle for carrying a child. HOWEVER... the ethicist then goes on to say that advancing the technique of uterus transplant may one day open the door for MEN to have this organ transplanted in their bodies, allowing them to carry babies! She describes this as "grossly unethical". My question is, WHY?!?

 

I've been thinking about this for a long time, and I can't quite figure out what would be so unethical about transplanting a uterus into a man. Sure, it goes against "the natural order of things", but if a man is willing to do this, and a woman is willing to allow it to be used in this fashion, then what's the problem???

 

(I realize that many women who want to give birth, but cannot, may be helped by this procedure in the future. And I also agree that in the grand scheme of things, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to give a woman the ability to bear a child than a man, if for nothing else but to appease that "natural order". But "grossly unethical"???)

 

Any comments on this??

 

hmsdread

[Guest PhuD]

Hi,

I am currently doing graduate work in the area of reproduction, in particular the implantation of the embryo. Based on what I have learned there would be a huge amount of research that would need to be done to actually be able to implant a uterus in a man and administer the hormones that are necessary to initiate and maintain a pregnancy. From that standpoint maybe she meant that with the limited amount of funding available for research money spent on this would be wasted money. Also the hormones required to maintain a pregnancy may have bizarre effects on males or the inherent male hormones may negatively effect the fetus. These are the things I first tought of when I read an article about the uterine transplant. On the other hand she may be a social psychologist and is wondering how your father being your mother would impact the Oedopus complex.

[Guest Kirsteen]

Hi PhuD,

 

Do you mind if I ask what type of research you're doing, specifically, and where you're doing it?

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[Guest PhuD]

I have identified and cloned two previously unidentified genes that are expressed during embryo implantation and appear to be necessary for embryo hatching and attachment. Our ultimate hope is that the purified protein products could be used diagnostically to identify infertility due to implantation errors or used to supplement embryo transfer media to ensure succesful implantation after transfer. Alternatively inhibitors against these enzymes may be useful as nonsteroidal contraceptives. I have been using a mouse model system but we are currently in the process of cloning the human homologues. I did my undergrad at Queen's but have done all my graduate work at U of C. It doesn't have the best reputation for research but I have a really great supervisor and a great project so that sort of cancels out the reputation of the school. The U of C is also working to become a centre of excellence for some types of research such a bioinformatics. that is probably way more info then you wanted!

[Guest Kirsteen]

Hi PhuD,

 

Thanks for the details. The work that you're doing sounds mighty cool, and very much along the same lines as some of the folk around whom I work. May I ask, (if you've published these already) what are the names of your two genes? Also, have you or your supervisor ever collaborated with Bob Casper's group?

 

As to Bioinformatics at UC, what sorts of areas are they forging paths in, specifically? (This is a personal area of interest.)

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[Guest psyc]

PhuD: Regarding your comment "On the other hand she may be a social psychologist and is wondering how your father being your mother would impact the Oedopus complex", I really hope that you were only joking when you said this......yet unfortunately I don't find the humour in this. As an aspiring psychologist, I find this comment a distortion of the knowledge the science of psychology has produced during these past decades.

 

First of all, just want to let you know that you have misunderstood what the topic of interest in social psychology is. Social psychologists (or any MAINSTREAM psychologists) are not interested in studying Oedipus Complex. Social psychologists are interested in studying human interactions. Second, Oedipus Complex may be mentioned in some intro psyc textbooks to illustrate the "dark age" of psychology where people blindly relied only on their limited clinical experiences and rationalism to build a theory without validating it with the scientific method. This is the reason psychology now stresses the importance of science in generating knowledge in our field. Many years of research in our field demonstrated that there is no such thing as "Oedipus Complex".

 

To me, it's an uneducated comment, and I also don't see how this issue can be related to the original question "How is the transfer of uterus to a man unethical?" To see such a comment given on a premed forum makes me sad......cos' to a psychology researcher like me, a comment like this negates all the advances psychologists have made over these 50 years in our research, our scientific knowledge, and our education.

It shows that there are people not only have no current knowledge of psychology, but are also relying on folklores, outdated and UNTRUE knowledge to make comments about another field, without even spending some time to verify whether it still holds true.

 

Don't accuse me of lacking a sense of humour and making too much of a deal out of it, since I consider your comment as part of an official reply to the original question about uterus transplant. It may be a joke to you, but to some people who're looking for serious answers to questions on this forum, what you said (which has no truth value) will appear true to them (especially for those who have no or partial knowledge on psychology). A comment like yours is the same as those like "there is no such thing called an embryo since all babies comes from deliveries from storks and so knocking off genes won't have any effect cos' there's no such thing called a uterus" or "physicians still use leeches to cure cancer". Of course people who have knowledge about medical advances or basic biology will know it's false, but imagine for those who don't.......and ignorant comments like those 2 above, in a way, "turn back the clock" in medical and biological history to those dark days where people had no knowledge about anatomy and so relied on imagination to treat illness.....and when one is giving out these comments as serious and truthful, imagine what you'll feel as as aspiring physician......

 

Remember, in an age promoting interdisciplinary health care team, physicians will be working with psychologists closely in health care settings. Ignorance, lack of, or even partial knowledge about each other has no place in such settings. I don't think any psychologists will appreciate comments like this.......I don't mean to stir up a fight here, but please be more careful when you're making comments like this about another field you may not know much about, since this forum is not only frequented by premeds or medical students.......

[Guest hmsdread]

Anyone care to actually address the initial post? I opened this thread in the hopes that someone may have insight into this matter of the ethics of transplanting a uterus into a man. While the fussin and the feudin is certainly entertaining I think it would be more appropriate to start your own thread.

 

So I've discussed this matter with some friends, and we tend to agree that the most contentious part of such a transplant would be the inherent unknowns - what would male hormones do to an embryo/fetus; what would the necessity of injecting female hormones to sustain the pregnancy do to the man; what would anti-rejection hormones do to the embryo/fetus; would the fetus develop properly once born because of all this??

 

Again, any insights or comments to this matter??

 

hmsdread

[Guest psyc]

What you proposed are valid issues from a biological perspective, and I think you can also look at the impact of uterus transplant from a psychosocial perspective.......e.g. It can lead to:

 

1. family role confusion (but it has nothing to do with Oedipus Complex though =) -- who'll be the father in the family then? Traditionally the one giving birth should be the mother, but now the father is giving birth......Should the child called his / her father "mother" in this case?

 

2. impact on family structure -- does it mean that we don't need a mother in a family anymore? Or what role will the mother play?

 

3. What is marriage? -- of course with the surge in the number of single-parent family, this may seem to be a non-issue, but if uterus transplant really works, it further makes "marriage" unnecessary......Or, what will be a marriage like under this change in gender roles i.e. now males can also give birth?

 

4. gender issues e.g. many people STILL believe that a female's worth lies in her reproductive capability......if males can now do what traditionally is a female's job, what will that do to the balance of the 2 genders? Will that lead to further discrimination against females?

[Guest psyc]

hmsdread: sorry it makes you feel that my response above to PhuD is "stealing the light" from your post =)......of course my thread is not simply "fussin & feudin" cos' I'm not here to stir up trouble......I'm posting just to clarify whether PhuD's statement is still valid given today's psychological research.......as an aspiring psychologist I feel I have the ethical responsibility to do that, the same as an aspiring physician has the responsibility to clarify whether "leeches do cure cancer" when someone is posting it as a fact on this forum.

 

I know that my response has nothing to do with your original post; I post on this thread only because his / her statement about Oedipus Complex is in this thread......So to compensate, I put in my 2 cents about the issue of uterus transplant. Although my answer is more psychosocial in nature, I hope that it'll complement your original answer (which is more biological), and hope this will help.

[Guest hmsdread]

psyc,

 

You bring up some good points. Thank you. As for your first post, I understand what you were doing. Which is why I responded somewhat tongue-in-cheek (ie. fussin and feudin), only in the hopes that I could get this derailed train back on the tracks. Thanks for your help.

 

hmsdread

[Guest psyc]

hmsdread: I'm glad to contribute my 2 cents! And you are right to pull the discussion back on track too, cos' it's such an interesting issue that deserves a thorough discussion......with medical advances that happen everyday, such ethical issues are bound to happen......

[Guest Liana]

In defense of PhuD, I laughed when I read that Oedipus remark. Thank you.

 

To psyc, it's true that posters on this board shouldn't be propagating stereotypes and be responsible to the potential readers of these remarks, but you also need to consider that most of the readers on this board are especially capable of forming their own opinions, and will not necessarily believe everything they read. That's the beauty of the forum. People can air out their opinions, and others can argue back. That you corrected PhuD on a misconception of the psychological field is applaudable; that you took so much offense to the fact that not everyone knows everything and that some people from time to time will make comments or form opinions based on erroneous information is a bit silly. When we're being ignorant, kindly inform us of the truth.

 

In response to hmsdread's original post, it would seem that the ethicist is being a bit sensitive to the prospect of transplatation of uteri into males. "Ethical" and "natural" are not synonymous terms. Assuming that scientists uncovered a way to produce a "healthy" child by providing all of the nutrients and hormones available in a female and neutralizing the effects of any male-specific hormone, then what is unethical about bringing birth to a child in this fashion? Ethics should be concerned with the impact of such a practice on the child and on the parent. If the child turns out to be "normal" and the father and mother are consenting, then how is this unethical? Perhaps the ethicist is concerned about the career prospects for serial surrogate mothers..?

[Guest psyc]

Liana: I don't feel it's appropriate to continue addressing the topic on Oedipus Complex here, cos' I don't think it'll be fair to hmsdread, the original poster......so I guess it'll be the last time I'll reply.

 

Just want to let you know that I DO take offense to PhuD's comment, but I am not offended by him / her "not knowing everything". Of course it's not necessary for a person to know it all in order to post on this forum, but when you're making an opinion about something, you'd better be informed about it......and that's the bottom line. I don't think what I did is silly or I've overreacted......I am passionate about my field and I felt I have the responsibility (personally and ethically) to defend it whenever such comments occur.

 

I guess it's all about perspectives right? You think PhuD's comment is funny, but maybe cos' that comment isn't directed towards your career field or something you know quite a lot and also feel passionate about, and so you don't "feel the pain" as strongly as I do. Given my background in psychology, I guess it's unfortunate that I can't find humour in it. You may think I'm silly and offensive, but I think I'm giving my honest opinion and clarifying things out (thus "kindly informing people of the truth"). The diversity of perspectives and the respect towards each other's informed opinions are the real beauty of this forum. So while I respect your point of view regarding this issue, I'll also hope that you'll respect mine.......maybe try to understand why I'll feel so strongly about PhuD's comment instead of brushing me off as being "silly"? :\

[Guest Liana]

psyc,

 

I absolutely do respect your opinions and the information you have conveyed.

I don't agree that one need know everything about a topic in order to have an opinion. How would you ever know if you knew enough? How could medical school interview committees, in all due respect, ask their applicants opinion questions about the healthcare system, when most of these applicants don't know half of what the admissions committee members know about this topic?

 

What's great about an opinion is that it can always be replaced by a new opinion as one learns more information and gains more insight into the perspectives of others. There's always a first time to learn things, so before this moment one cannot help but be ignorant. All one can do is take action to accelerate the rate at which this knowledge is acquired.

[Guest psyc]

Liana,

 

Of course one doesn't need to know EVERYTHING in order to have an opinion, but one DOES HAVE TO BE INFORMED i.e. KNOW SOMETHING when having an opinion. (I have clarified that in my last post, but I guess you missed that......) You don't need to know a lot; just make sure what you're saying is true will be good enough. I'm not saying PhuD should know EVERYTHING about psychology in order to make a comment, but at least he / she has to know SOMETHING TRUE about it (besides just the phrase "Oedipus Complex"), and maybe check whether his / her comment is based on truth before saying it. That's a responsible thing to do, especially in a forum like this where people are seeking honest BUT ALSO truthful opinions about important issues......This is not a Yahoo!Chatroom and we're not just here chatting about "stuff", and so I hold a higher standard to those "opinions".

 

I guess we may have different definition on "opinion". To me, "opinion" means 2 things. "Opinion" can mean what you feel about certain things. It's based on emotion, preference.....e.g. "I like this apple." If you're only making "opinions" of this sort, what I said above doesn't hold true......of course I won't ask you to verify whether you indeed "like this apple" and to examine whether this statement has any truth value by comparing it to my preference of apples.

 

However, PhuD's comment clearly doesn't qualify as a "feeling" opinion. It's more like a "factual" opinion, an opinion whether you talk about things as a fact. A similar example will be "I think humans never landed on the moon". That's when what I said above applies......to make such an opinion, you really do need to be informed, although you don't need to be an expert. Who needs you to be an astronaut in order to say something about whether humans have landed on the moon ever? But I guess at least you need to know what's true and what's not, right? "Think before you say it", that's the universal truth; if you really don't know anything about it, maybe you should consider not to say anything, or just say "I don't know", instead of saying something that deviates from reality?

 

During a med school interview, most of those "opinion" questions you talked about e.g. opinions about health care system, are more of the "factual" opinions type (of course they may ask you "do you like the current medical system?", which qualifies as a "feeling" opinion question, but a question "Why?" will always ensue, which is a "factual" opinion question). I don't think they require you to be an expert on the health care system in order to answer a question about it, but they do want you to KNOW SOMETHING, and want your answer to be BASED ON TRUTH, right? Of course they know that the applicants have far less knowledge than they do, but I don't think they'll appreciate a comment like "I like our system cos' Canada has a 2-tiered health care system" or "I don't like Canada's health care system cos' we never had universal health coverage and this system is totally based on one's ability to pay, not one's needs". I also don't think they'll accept an excuse like "we applicants don't know as much as you do, but we are still entitled to say whatever we want even though what we said has absolutely no truth value in it. So you shouldn't penalize us for saying something like that......hey! NO ONE KNOWS EVERYTHING RIGHT?"

 

That's my 2 cents........I know I know, I've said that I won't reply here anymore......so it's really my fault :\ (SORRY hmsdread). I just think Liana's response is interesting and I wanna clarify myself too......I don't know whether Liana has anything more to say......so if anyone wants to discuss it further, let's start a new thread or something! (although I don't know whether I will have anything more to add to this since I've made myself pretty clear this time......)

[Guest psyc]

sorry......I don't know how to edit my previous reply, and so I have to add a new message here......this message is for clarifying my argument above.

 

In my previous message, I said "'Think before you say it', that's the universal truth; if you really don't know anything about it, maybe you should consider not to say anything, or just say "I don't know", instead of saying something that deviates from reality?"

 

What I said above shouldn't be interpreted as evidence against freedom of speech. I agree with Liana that "There's always a first time to learn things, so before this moment one cannot help but be ignorant.", and I don't think ignorant people shouldn't be allowed to have opinions.

 

However, people reading and posting at this forum surely aren't "ignorant". They're educated, they know how to find out information, and they are contemplating medical school. So I would like to add something to my quote above:

 

......if you really don't know anything about it, maybe you should consider not to say anything, or just say "I don't know", instead of saying something that deviates from reality? (THE APPENDIX STARTS HERE) Or, how about taking some initiative to find out more truthful information about it before saying it? We're not some peasants in the 1800's who didn't have access to education and the technology to find out information. Your local library is just several blocks away. Every university has a library with tons of INTRODUCTORY textbooks in psychology. Or, if you're even too lazy to do that, you're current sitting in front of your computer connected to the Internet, where information about current psychology research can be found.

 

So self-handicapping or admitting one's ignorance isn't an excuse to ignorant opinions, cos' those who frequent this website and contemplate medical schools surely have the skills and the initiative to make themselves not to be ignorant anymore. (Think about it: How did you learn medical ethics and health care system in Canada? I don't think many pre-med programs have specific courses or majors on these where expert instructors TELL you what's correct and what not, but as far as I can see, many of you do make good arguments on these 2 topics on this forum!) In an age where medical schools advocate PBL, self-directed learning is surely a skill necessary to survive in medicine, not only in schools, but also throughout your lifelong career as you need to constantly update your knowledge. And again, of course you don't need to know EVERYTHING, but by some initiative and learning for sure you'll know SOMETHING TRUTHFUL, on which you can safely base your opinion.

 

In conclusion, instead of:

1. giving out an ignorant "opinion" and then waiting for someone to enlighten you on the truth, or

2. giving out an ignorant opinion and later correcting yourself by "replac(ing) your opinion with a new one as (you) learn more information and gains more insight into the perspectives of others.",

how about learning more information and gaining more insight BEFORE giving out an opinion?

[Guest PhuD]

For the record. It was a joke!!!!! I am sorry if Psyc was offended it was intended as a little comic relief for those of us going through the stress of interviews. I have an Honours degree in Psychology so I don't need as much "education" about psychology as you think. It was a joke.