Current ethical aspects of absolute uterine factor infertility treatment using uterus transplantation

Czech version

Authors: Chmel R. ¹; Nováčková M. ¹; Čekal M. ¹; Chmel R. jr. ^1,2; Pastor Z. ¹
Authors‘ workplace: Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika 2. LF UK a FN Motol, Praha ¹; LF UK v Plzni ²
Published in: Ceska Gynekol 2021; 86(1): 40-45
Category:
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/cccg202140

Overview

Objective: An analysis of ethical studies related to uterus transplantation in the treatment of absolute uterine factor infertility.

Methods: Literary research using the Web of Science, Google Scholar and Pubmed databases with the following keywords: absolute uterine factor infertility, ethics, deceased donor, living donor, and uterus transplantation. An analysis of articles published in impact and reviewed journals between 2000–2021.

Results: Uterus transplantation is a promising treatment method for women with absolute uterine factor infertility. In the experimental studies, an ultimate goal of this complex treatment was repeatedly achieved: childbirth through a caesarean section. An important milestone towards the application of uterus transplantation in human was the Montreal criteria of its ethical feasibility, published in 2012–2013. In 2012, the first uterus transplant study from a living donor started in Sweden and, in 2016, further studies were initiated worldwide. The first childbirth from the transplanted uterus in 2014 increased the interest of ethicists in various aspects of this experimental treatment, and this trend continues. Current ethical analyzes are focused particularly on the comparison of advantages and disadvantages related to the utilization of living and deceased donors of uterus; comparing ethical aspects of gestational surrogacy and uterus transplantation; uterus transplantation as an extremely radical form of assisted reproduction; its impact on adoptions; uterus transplantation in trans-gender women; the importance of establishing an international registry for uterus transplants; and other important ethical issues associated with this complex form of assisted reproduction.

Conclusion: Uterus transplantation is still in an experimental stage. The ethical analysis of the individual steps of this comprehensive method in the treatment of female infertility should be carried out continuously, in connection with the gradually presented outcomes of ongoing scientific research studies.

Keywords:

absolute uterine factor infertility – ethics – uterus transplantation – deceased donor – living donor

Sources

1. Nieman CL, Kinahan KE, Yount SE et al. Fertility preservation and adolescent patients: lessons from adult survivors of childhood cancer and their parents. Cancer Treat Res 2007; 138: 201–217. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-72293-1_15.

2. Orentlicher D. Toward acceptance of uterus transplants. Hastings Cent Rep 2012; 42 (6): 12–13. doi: 10.1002/hast.90.

3. Brännström M, Dahm-Kähler P, Kvarnström N et al. Live birth after robotic-assisted live donor uterus transplantation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2020; 99 (9): 1222–1229. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13853.

4. Brännström M, Johannesson L, Bokström H et al. Livebirth after uterus transplantation. Lancet 2015; 385 (9968): 607–616. doi: 10.1016/ S0140-6736 (14) 61728-1.

5. Ejzenberg D, Andraus W, Baratelli Carelli Mendes LR et al. Livebirth after uterus transplantation from a deceased donor in a recipient with uterine infertility. Lancet 2019; 392 (10165): 2697–2704. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736 (18) 31766-5.

6. Flyckt R, Falcone T, Quintini C et al. First birth from a deceased donor uterus in the United States: from severe graft rejection to successful cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223 (2): 143–151. doi: 10.1016/ j.ajog.2020.03.001.

7. Chmel R, Novackova M, Pastor Z. Lessons learned from the Czech uterus transplant trial related to surgical technique that may affect reproductive success. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2020; 60 (4): 625–627. doi: 10.1111/ajo.13184.

8. Testa G, Johannesson L. The ethical challenges of uterus transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2017; 22 (6): 593–597. doi: 10.1097/MOT.0000000000000467.

9. O’Donovan L. Pushing the boudaries: uterine transplantation and the limits of reproductive autonomy. Bioethics 2018; 32 (8): 489–498. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12531.

10. Chmel R, Nováčková M, Pastor Z et al. Etické aspekty transplantace dělohy. Čas Lék Česk 2017; 156 (1): 36–42.

11. Matěcha J, Chmel R jr, Nováčková M et al. Simplifikace odběru dělohy k transplantaci: robotický přístup a odtok krve ovariálními žílami. Ceska Gynekol 2020; 85 (5): 339–343.

12. Chmel R, Cekal M, Pastor Z et al. Assisted reproductive techniques and pregnancy results in women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome undergoing uterus transplantation: the Czech experience. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2020; 33 (4): 410–414. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2020.03.006.

13. Holub Z. Transplantace lidské dělohy – nová éra? Ceska Gynekol 2002; 67 (4): 230–231.

14. Devauchelle B, Badet L, Lengelé B et al. First human face allograft: early report. Lancet 2006; 368 (9531): 203–209. doi: 10.1016/S01 40-6736 (06) 68935-6.

15. Pomahac B, Pribaz J, Eriksson E et al. Three patients with full fascial transplantation. N Engl J Med 2012; 366 (8): 715–722. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1111432.

16. Fageeh W, Raffa H, Jabbad H et al. Transplantation of the human uterus. Int J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 76 (3): 245–251. doi: 10.1016/ s0020-7292 (01) 00597-5.

17. Kandela P. Uterus transplantation failure causes Saudi Arabian government clampdown. Lancet 2000; 356 (9232): 838.

18. Fageeh W. Apology to Dr Wafa Mohammed Khalil Fageeh, obstetrician and gynecologist and assistant professor at King Abdilaziz University, and her medical team. Lancet 2001; 358 (9287): 1076. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736 (01) 06249-3.

19. Chmel R jr, Pastor Z, Mužík M et al. Syndrom Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser – ageneze dělohy a pochvy: aktuální znalosti a terapeutické možnosti. Ceska Gynekol 2019; 84 (5): 386–392.

20. Pastor Z, Fronek J, Novackova M et al. Sexual life of women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome after laparoscopic Vecchietti vaginoplasty. Sex Med 2017; 5 (2): e106–e113. doi: 10.1016/j.esxm.2016.12.003.

21. Chmel R, Novackova M, Janousek L et al. Revaluation and lessons learned from a first 9 cases of a Czech uterus transplantation trial: four deceased donor and 5 living donor uterus transplantations. Am J Transplant 2019; 19 (3): 855–864. doi: 10.1111/ajt.15096.

22. Tummers P, Göker M, Dahm-Kahler P et al. Meeting report: first state-of-the-art meeting on uterus transplantation. Transplantation 2019; 103 (3): 455–458. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000 000000002561.

23. Altchek A. Uterus transplantation. Mt Sinai J Med 2003; 70 (3): 154–162.

24. Brännström M, Wranning CA. Uterus transplantation: how far away from human trials? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008; 87 (11): 1097–1100. doi: 10.1080/00016340802495509.

25. Brännström M, Wranning CA, Altchek A. Experimental uterus transplantation. Hum Reprod Update 2010; 16 (3): 329–345. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmp049.

26. Ozkan O, Akar ME, Ozkan O et al. Preliminary results of the first human uterus transplantation from a multiorgan donor. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (2): 470–476. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.035.

27. Ozkan O, Dogan NU, Ozkan O et al. Uterus transplantation: from animal models through the first heart beating pregnancy to the human live birth. Womens Health 2016; 12 (4): 442–449. doi: 10.1177/1745505716653849.

28. Del Priore G, Saso S, Meslin EM et al. Uterine transplantation – a real possibility? The Indianapolis consensus. Hum Reprod 2013; 28 (2): 288–291. doi: 10.1093/humrep/des406.

29. Brännström M, Johannesson L, Dahm-Kähler P et al. First clinical uterus transplantation trial: a six-month report. Fertil Steril 2014; 101 (5): 1228–1236. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.02.024.

30. Lefkowitz A, Edwards M, Balayla J. The Montreal criteria for the ethical feasibility of uterine transplantation. Transpl Int 2012; 25 (4): 439–447. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2012.01438.x.

31. Lefkowitz A, Edwards M, Balayla J. Ethical considerations in the era of the uterine transplant: an update of the Montreal criteria for the ethical feasibility of uterine transplantation. Fertil Steril 2013; 100 (4): 924–926. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.05.026.

32. Taneja A, Das S, Hussain SA et al. Uterine transplant: a risk to life or a chance for life? Sci Eng Ethics 2019; 25 (2): 635–642. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0018-4.

33. Jones BP, Williams NJ, Saso S et al. Uterine transplantation in transgender women. BJOG 2019; 126 (2): 152–156. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.

34. Shapiro ME, Ward FR. Uterus transplantation: a step too far. Am J Bioeth 2018; 18 (7): 36–37. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2018.1478027.

35. Kisu I, Banno K, Matoba Y et al. Current status of uterus transplantation and approaches for future clinical application in Japan. Transplant Proc 2018; 50 (9): 2783–2788. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2018.02.198.

36. Mölne J, Broecker V, Ekberg J et al. Monitoring of human uterus transplantation with cervical biopsies: a provisional scoring system for rejection. Am J Transplant 2017; 17 (6): 1628–1636. doi: 10.1111/ajt.14135.

37. Arora KS, Blake V. Uterus transplantation: ethical and regulatory challenges. J Med Ethics 2014; 40 (6): 396–400. doi: 10.1136/med ethics-2013-101400.

38. Bruno B, Arora KS. Uterus transplantation: the ethics of using deceased versus living donors. Am J Bioeth 2018; 18 (7): 6–15. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2018.1478018.

39. Williams N. Should deceased donation be morally preferred in uterine transplantation trials? Bioethics 2016; 30 (6): 415–424. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12247.

40. Williams NJ. Deceased donation in uterus transplantation trials: novelty, consent, and surrogate decision making. Am J Bioeth 2018; 18 (7): 18–20. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2018.1478 043.

41. Bruno B, Arora KS. Ethical implications of donor type for uterus transplantation: why we should remain wary of using living donors. Yale J Biol Med 2020; 93 (4): 587–592.

42. Jones BP, Saso S, Bracewell-Milnes T et al. Human uterine transplantation: a review of outcomes from the first 45 cases. BJOG 2019; 126 (11): 1310–1319. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15863.

43. Johannesson L, Koon EC, Bayer J et al. Dallas UtErus Transplant Study: Early outcomes and complications of robot-assisted hysterectomy for living uterus donors. Transplantation 2021; 105 (1): 225–230. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000 000000003211.

44. Flyckt RL, Farrell RM, Perni UC et al. Deceased donor uterus transplantation: innovation and adaptation. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 28 (4): 837–842. doi: 10.1097/AOG.00000000000 1617.

45. Ross LF, Thistlethwaite JR. Prisoners as living donors: a vulnerabilities analysis. Camb Q Health Ethics 2018; 27 (12): 93–108. doi: 10.1017/S0963180117000433.

46. Lotz M. Uterus transplantation as radical reproduction: taking the adoption alternative more seriously. Bioethics 2018; 32 (8): 499–508. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12490.

47. Moore FD. Ethical problems special to surgery: surgical teaching, surgical innovation, and the surgeon in the managed care. Arch Surg 2000; 135 (1): 14–16. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.135. 1.14.

48. Barn G. Uterus transplants and the potential for harm: lessons from commercial surrogacy. Dev World Bioeth 2020; 6. doi: 10.1111/dewb.12274.

49. Farrell RM, Johannesson L, Flyckt R et al. Evolving ethical issues with advances in uterus transplantation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 222 (6): 584.e1–584.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020. 01.032.

50. Hammond-Browning N, Williams NJ. Developing an international registry for uterus transplantation (IRUTx): promises and challenges. Hum Reprod 2020; 35 (12): 2643–2649. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deaa207.

51. Chmel R, Pastor Z, Matěcha J et al. Uterine transplantaion in the era of successful childbirths from living and deceased donor uteri: current challenges. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2020; 164 (1): 115–120. doi: 10.5507/bp.2019.020.