As uterine transplantation (UTx) shifts from an experimental fertility treatment toward standard of care, ethical considerations in expanding access to UTx beyond currently eligible recipients merit attention. We conducted a scoping review to map existing scholarship on the ethics of candidacy for UTx beyond cisgender female recipients.
Methods:
Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), five databases were searched (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL) from database inception to June 24, 2022. Following title, abstract, and full-text screening, data were extracted and charted to identify thematic patterns and identify gaps in scholarship.
Results:
Thirty-two articles were included in the final sample. Issues of justice figured most prominently. Common themes included the right to gestate for transgender women and beyond, the possibility of increased surgical and medical risks for other recipient populations, and attendant moral obligation to expand access to UTx if additive risks are mitigated. Equity considerations were also frequently cited, along with the value of gestation in female identity and its role in defining womanhood.
Conclusion:
Discourse on the ethics of expanding eligibility for UTx is still emerging. Areas for further consideration include exploring the relation of gestation to identity and gender, clarifying the need for further research on safety and efficacy of UTx in other recipient populations, assessing desire for UTx among individuals other than cisgender women, and addressing sustainable funding. This scoping review can inform efforts to develop equitable eligibility criteria for access to UTx moving forward.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
RobertsonJA. Other women’s wombs: Uterus transplants and gestational surrogacy. J Law Biosci, 2016; 3(1):68–86; doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsw011
2.
JonesBP, SasoS, YazbekJ, et al.Uterine transplantation: Scientific impact paper No. 65 April 2021. Bjog, 2021; 128(10):e51–e66; doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.16697
3.
LernerT, EjzenbergD, PereyraE, et al.What are the possibilities of uterine transplantation in transgender patients? Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet, 2017; 39(10):521–522; doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1606321
4.
SmithS, HanJ. The trans-formation of gender confirming surgery: A brief history. [Abstract] J Urol, 2019; 201(Supplement 4):e244; doi: 10.1097/01.JU.0000555394.71572.8e
5.
DorafsharAH, JahromiAH, HorenSR, et al.Strategic planning and essential steps for establishing a uterine transplant and rehabilitation program. Ann Surg, 2022; 276(1):74–80; doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005301
6.
LefkowitzA, EdwardsM, BalaylaJ. 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
7.
OzkanO, AkarME, OzkanO, et al.Preliminary results of the first human uterus transplantation from a multiorgan donor. Fertil Steril, 2013; 99(2):470–476.e5; doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.035
8.
BrännströmM, JohannessonL, BokströmH, et al.Livebirth after uterus transplantation. Lancet, 2015; 385(9968):607–616; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61728-1
9.
FlycktR, FalconeT, QuintiniC, 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
10.
TestaG, McKennaGJ, GunbyRT, et al.First live birth after uterus transplantation in the United States. Am J Transplant, 2018; 18(5):1270–1274; doi: 10.1111/ajt.14737
11.
RichardsEG, FarrellRM, RicciS, et al.Uterus transplantation: State of the art in 2021. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2021; 38(9):2251–2259; doi: 10.1007/s10815-021-02245-7
12.
Hamidian JahromiA, HorenSR, StoehrJR. Ethical and legal considerations regarding parenthood in transgender patients following uterine transplant. Exp Clin Transplant, 2023; 21(1):80–82; doi: 10.6002/ect.2022.0055
13.
JahromiAH, HorenSR, DorafsharAH, et al.Uterine transplantation and donation in transgender individuals; proof of concept. Int J Transgend Health, 2021; 22(4):349–359; doi: 10.1080/26895269.2021.1915635
14.
JohannessonL, WallA, TzakisA, et al.Life underneath the VCA umbrella: Perspectives from the US Uterus Transplant Consortium. Am J Transplant, 2021; 21(5):1699–1704; doi: 10.1111/ajt.16445
15.
JohnsonN, WallA, JohannessonL. Implementing regulations and policies for uterus transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant, 2021; 26(6):660–663; doi: 10.1097/MOT.0000000000000937
HorvatM, IltisA. What are good guidelines for evaluating uterus transplantation? AMA J Ethics, 2019; 21(11):E988–E995; doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2019.988
18.
JohannessonL, TestaG, FlycktR, et al.Guidelines for standardized nomenclature and reporting in uterus transplantation: An opinion from the United States Uterus Transplant Consortium. Am J Transplant, 2020; 20(12):3319–3325; doi: 10.1111/ajt.15973
19.
O’DonovanL, WilliamsNJ, WilkinsonS. Ethical and policy issues raised by uterus transplants. Br Med Bull, 2019; 131(1):19–28; doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldz022
20.
NgaageLM, IkeS, ElegbedeA, et al.The changing paradigm of ethics in uterus transplantation: A systematic review. Transpl Int, 2020; 33(3):260–269; doi: 10.1111/tri.13548
21.
BrunoB, AroraKS. Uterus transplantation: The ethics of using deceased versus living donors. Am J Bioeth, 2018; 18(7):6–15; doi: 10.1080/15265161.2018.1478018
22.
JärvholmS, WarrenAM, JalmbrantM, et al.Preoperative psychological evaluation of uterus transplant recipients, partners, and living donors: Suggested framework. Am J Transplant, 2018; 18(11):2641–2646; doi: 10.1111/ajt.15039
23.
JohannessonL, RichardsE, ReddyV, et al.The first 5 years of uterus transplant in the US. JAMA Surg, 2022; 157(9):790–797; doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.2612
TriccoAC, LillieE, ZarinW, et al.PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med, 2018; 169(7):467–473; doi: 10.7326/M18-0850
BalaylaJ, PoundsP, LasryA, et al.The Montreal criteria and uterine transplants in transgender women. Bioethics, 2021; 35(4):326–330; doi: 10.1111/bioe.12832
28.
Hammond‐BrowningN. Author’s reply re: Uterine transplantation in transgender women: Medical, legal and ethical considerations. Bjog, 2019; 126(4):546–546; doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15555
29.
SpillmanMA, SadeRM. A woman in full. Am J Bioeth, 2018; 18(7):32–34; doi: 10.1080/15265161.2018.1478028
30.
MurphyTF. Bioethics, children, and the environment. Bioethics, 2018; 32(1):3–9; doi: 10.1111/bioe.12386
31.
SaadTC, RodgerD. Can conscientious objection lead to eugenic practices against LGBT individuals? Bioethics, 2019; 33(4):524–528; doi: 10.1111/bioe.12557
32.
BrummettA. Conscience claims, metaphysics, and avoiding an LGBT eugenic. Bioethics, 2018; 32(5):272–280; doi: 10.1111/bioe.12430
33.
KimberlyLL, SutterME, QuinnGP. Equitable access to ectogenesis for sexual and gender minorities. Bioethics, 2020; 34(4):338–345; doi: 10.1111/bioe.12723
WinterGF. New routes to parenthood. Br J Midwifery, 2019; 27(4):270–270; doi: 10.12968/bjom.2019.27.4.270
36.
SampsonA, KimberlyLL, GoldmanKN, et al.Uterus transplantation in women who are genetically XY. J Med Ethics, 2019; 45(10):687–689; doi: 10.1136/medethics-2018-105222
37.
WeyersS, de SutterP. The future expansion of patient groups for uterus transplantation. In: Uterus Transplantation. (BrännströmM.ed.). Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland; 2020; pp. 215–218.
38.
Rodriguez-WallbergK, Obedin-MaliverJ, TaylorB, et al.Reproductive health in transgender and gender diverse individuals: A narrative review to guide clinical care and international guidelines. Int J Transgend Health, 2023; 24(1):7–25; doi: 10.1080/26895269.2022.2035883
39.
MookerjeeVG, KwanD. Uterus transplantation as a fertility option in transgender healthcare. Int J Transgend Health, 2020; 21(2):122–124; doi: 10.1080/15532739.2019.1599764
40.
AlghraniA. Uterus transplantation in and beyond cisgender women: Revisiting procreative liberty in light of emerging reproductive technologies. J Law Biosci, 2018; 5(2):301–328; doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsy012
41.
LefkowitzA, EdwardsM, BalaylaJ. 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
42.
SparrowR. Is it “every man’s right to have babies if he wants them”?: Male pregnancy and the limits of reproductive liberty. Kennedy Inst Ethics J, 2008; 18(3):275–299; doi: 10.1353/ken.0.0198
43.
RobertsonJA. Is there a right to gestate? J Law Biosci, 2017; 4(3):630–636; doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsx010
44.
ChengPJ, PastuszakAW, MyersJB, et al.Fertility concerns of the transgender patient. Transl Androl Urol, 2019; 8(3):209–218; doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.05.09
45.
RichieCS. Not sick: Liberal, trans, and crip feminist critiques of medicalization. J Bioeth Inq, 2019; 16(3):375–387; doi: 10.1007/s11673-019-09922-4
46.
MabelH, FarrellRM, TzakisAG. On gender and reproductive decision-making in uterine transplantation. Am J Bioeth, 2018; 18(7):3–5; doi: 10.1080/15265161.2018.1489655
47.
JonesBP, RajamanoharanA, ValiS, et al.Perceptions and motivations for uterus transplant in transgender women. JAMA Netw Open, 2021; 4(1):e2034561; doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.34561
48.
O’DonovanL. Pushing the boundaries: Uterine transplantation and the limits of reproductive autonomy. Bioethics, 2018; 32(8):489–498; doi: 10.1111/bioe.12531
49.
MurphyTF. Sex before the state: Civic sex, reproductive innovations, and gendered parental identity. Camb Q Healthc Ethics, 2017; 26(2):267–277; doi: 10.1017/S0963180116000864
50.
JonesBP, KasavenLS, ChanM, et al.Uterine transplantation in 2021: Recent developments and the future. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 2022; 65(1):4–14; doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000680
51.
JonesB, WilliamsN, SasoS, et al.Uterine transplantation in transgender women. Bjog, 2019; 126(2):152–156; doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15438
52.
Umani RonchiF, NapoletanoG. Uterus transplantation and the redefinition of core bioethics precepts. Acta Biomed, 2021; 92(5):e2021435; doi: 10.23750/abm.v92i5.12257
53.
Hammond‐BrowningN. Uterine transplantation in transgender women: Medical, legal and ethical considerations. Bjog, 2019; 126(2):157–157; doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15482
54.
MurphyTF. LGBT people and the work ahead in bioethics. Bioethics, 2015; 29(6):ii–iv; doi: 10.1111/bioe.12168
55.
CatsanosR, RogersW, LotzM. The ethics of uterus transplantation. Bioethics, 2013; 27(2):65–73; doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01897.x
56.
StoffelC, CarpenterE, EverettB, et al.Family planning for sexual minority women. Semin Reprod Med, 2017; 35(5):460–468; doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1604456
GoldbergAE, TornelloS, FarrR, et al.Barriers to adoption and foster care and openness to child characteristics among transgender adults. Child Youth Serv Rev, 2020; 109:104699; doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104699
DavidsonT, EkbergJ, SandmanL, et al.The costs of human uterus transplantation: A study based on the nine cases of the initial Swedish live donor trial. Hum Reprod, 2021; 36(2):358–366; doi: 10.1093/humrep/deaa301
62.
NadkarniK. Successful conception and delivery in an unusual case of 46,XY pure gonadal dysgenesis with spontaneous breast development, menses, and bilateral hydrosalpinx. Int J Infertil Fetal Med, 2016; 7(2):58–60; doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10016-1129
63.
SiddiqueH, DaggettP, ArtleyK. Successful term vaginal delivery in a 46,XY woman. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2008; 101(3):298–299; doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2007.12.008
64.
PolákováM, AlexanderD, SulcJ, et al.[Pregnancy and delivery in a patient with pure 46,XY karyotype. Summary of actual knowledge about XY women]. Ceska Gynekol, 2013; 78(5):443–447.
65.
MooreFD. Ethical problems special to surgery: Surgical teaching, surgical innovation, and the surgeon in managed care. Arch Surg, 2000; 135(1):14–16; doi: 10.1001/archsurg.135.1.14
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
