Vulnerability is frequently conceptualized as a group attribute, with all members of that group automatically receiving additional safeguards, including denial of access. There has, however, been a move to recognize more nuanced, context-driven concepts of vulnerability. In the research setting, this has taken the form of a taxonomy that identifies eight types of vulnerability (cognitive, juridic, deferential, social, medical, situational, allocational, and infrastructural) that can lead a potential research subject to make choices against their own best interests. In the consumer context, vulnerability is conceptualized as a lack of control arising from the interaction of personal states, personal characteristics, and external conditions that hinder marketplace navigation. This study examines both the research and consumer conceptualizations of vulnerability for candidates for uterus transplantation (UTx)—a procedure that is transitioning out of the context of clinical trials, and into a consumer marketplace. It identifies the potential for most types of vulnerability defined in the research taxonomy, as well as the strategies, such as a psychosocial evaluation during the screening process, that can be carried forward from UTx clinical trial protocols to manage these vulnerabilities. Likewise, the consumer-driven model for vulnerability indicates similar risks for UTx as have been identified for in vitro fertilization: specifically, a willingness among women with low chances of success to repeatedly incur physical, financial, and emotional risks in the pursuit of pregnancy, and the need to support a sense of control through managing expectations and validating decisions about appropriate treatment endpoints.
KipnisK. Vulnerability in research subjects: a bioethical taxonomy. In: The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) (ed.) Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants Volume II Commissioned Papers and Staff Analysis. Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2001, pp. G1–13.
3.
RossLFThistlethwaiteJR. Developing an ethics framework for living donor transplantation. J Med Ethics2018; 44: 843–850.
4.
RossLFThistlethwaiteJR. Prisoners as living donors: a vulnerabilities analysis. Camb Q Healthc Ethics2018; 27: 93–108.
5.
WallAETestaG. Living donor ethics and uterus transplantation. Perspect Biol Med2023; 66: 195–209.
6.
BrothertonSKaoACriggerBJ. Professing the values of medicine: the modernized AMA code of medical ethics. JAMA2016; 316: 1041–1042.
7.
ApplegateZBurchellH.Brazilian butt-lift surgery: What are the risks and why is it so popular? Brazilian butt-lift surgery: What are the risks and why is it so popular? (2023, accessed 2 September 2024).
8.
BeckerGNachtigallRD. Born to be a mother': the cultural construction of risk in infertility treatment in the U.S. Soc Sci Med1994; 39: 507–518.
9.
BakerSMGentryJWRittenburgTL. Building understanding of the domain of consumer vulnerability. J Macromarket2005; 25: 128–139.
10.
da GracaBJohannessonLTestaG, et al. The ethical evolution of uterus transplantation from concept to clinical procedure. Clin Obstet Gynecol2022; 65: 24–36.
11.
RobertsonNTsarenkoYPolonskyMJ, et al. Vulnerability in in-vitro fertilisation transformative services: an interplay of individual and institutional factors. J Serv Market2021; 35: 706–721.
BridgesKM.When pregnancy is an injury: rape, law, and culture. Stanford Law Rev2013; 65: 457–516.s
18.
Davis v Davis, Sup Ct Tennessee, 842 SW2d 588 (1992).
19.
NnoliA.Historical primer on obstetrics and gynecology health inequities in America: a narrative review of four events. Obstet Gynecol2023; 142: 779–786..
20.
In re Guardianship of Hayes, 93 Wash 2d 228, 608 P 2d 635 (1980).
21.
Hammond-BrowningN. UK Criteria for uterus transplantation: a review. BJOG2019; 126: 1320–1326.
WatsonJ. Stretching beyond our perceived boundaries: the role of speech-language pathology in realising autonomy through supported decision-making. Int J Speech Lang Pathol2023; 25: 355–362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2023.2187331.
24.
RossNEWebsterTGTastenhoyeCA, et al. Reproductive decision-making capacity in women with psychiatric illness: a systematic review. J Acad Consult Liaison Psychiatry2022; 63: 61–70.
25.
JohannessonLWallisKKoonEC, et al. Living uterus donation and transplantation: experience of interest and screening in a single center in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol2018; 218: 331.e331–331.e337.
26.
JohannessonLWallA. Uterus transplantation—donor and recipient work-up. Curr Opin Organ Transplant2021; 26: 634–639.
27.
NauMBenderHEStreetJ. Psychotic denial of pregnancy: legal and treatment considerations for clinicians. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law2011; 39: 31–39.
28.
SpadaMSimpsonMGopalanP, et al. Induction of labor for psychiatric indications: a case series and literature review. Psychosomatics2019; 60: 204–210.
29.
Haimov-KochmanRImbarTFarchatM, et al. Adolescent infertility–to treat or not to treat. Fertil Steril2008; 90: e2001–e2004.
JarvholmSWarrenAMJalmbrantM, et al. Preoperative psychological evaluation of uterus transplant recipients, partners, and living donors: suggested framework. Am J Transplant2018; 18: 2641–2646. Evaluation Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't..
The 193rd General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Bill HD.3822. An act to establish the Massachusetts incarcerated individual bone marrow and organ donation program. January 20, 2023, https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822 (accessed 30 August 2024).
SepperEWhiteKBeasleyA. The Texas medical board and the futility of medical exceptions to abortion bans. JAMA2024; 331: 2073–2074.
40.
ShacharCBaruchSKingLP. Whose responsibility is it to define exceptions in abortion bans?JAMA2024; 331: 559–560.
41.
HodsonNBewleyS. Abuse in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic qualitative review and typology. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol2019; 238: 170–177.
42.
ShabanikiyaHDarmanAGhavamiV, et al. Men's involvement in family planning programs and associated factors from the perspective of women in Afghanistan; a case study. Midwifery2023; 117: 103575.
43.
AlrawiY. Exploring barriers to family planning service utilization and uptake among women in Iraq. East Mediterr Health J2021; 27: 818–825.
44.
PietromonacoPROverallNCBeckLA, et al. Is low power associated with submission during marital conflict? Moderating roles of gender and traditional gender role beliefs. Soc Psychol Personal Sci2021; 12: 165–175.
45.
National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Assessing risks and potential benefits and evaluating vulnerability. In Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants Volume I Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Bethesda, Maryland: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2001: 69–98.
46.
GordonBG. Vulnerability in research: basic ethical concepts and general approach to review. Ochsner J2020; 20: 34–38.
47.
BlakeVK. Financing uterus transplants: the United States context. Bioethics2018; 32: 527–533.
48.
WilkinsonSWilliamsNJ. Should uterus transplants be publicly funded?J Med Ethics2016; 42: 559–565.
49.
OzturkRBloomTLLiY, et al. Stress, stigma, violence experiences and social support of US infertile women. J Reprod Infant Psychol2021; 39: 205–217.
50.
CollinsME. The impact of infertility on daily occupations and roles. J Reprod Infertil2019; 20: 24–34.
51.
YingLYWuLHLokeAY. Gender differences in experiences with and adjustments to infertility: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud2015; 52: 1640–1652.
52.
KaliarntaSNihlen-FahlquistJRoeserS. Emotions and ethical considerations of women undergoing IVF-treatments. HEC Forum2011; 23: 281–293.
53.
LeeM. Don't give up! A cyber-ethnography and discourse analysis of an online infertility patient forum. Cult Med Psychiatry2017; 41: 341–367.
54.
FischerNXunHLossieA, et al. Perspectives of 281 patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome on uterine transplantation. Fertil Steril2021; 115: 1074–1083.
55.
RichardsE.G.AgatisaPKDavisAC, et al. Framing the diagnosis and treatment of absolute uterine factor infertility: insights from in-depth interviews with uterus transplant trial participants. AJOB Empir Bioeth2019; 10: 23–35.
56.
XunHFadaviDDarrachH, et al. Recognizing the vulnerable: perspectives, attitudes, and interests of women with uterine factor infertility towards uterus allotransplantation. Cureus2021; 13: e18891.
57.
WallAEJohannessonLSokM, et al. The journey from infertility to uterus transplantation: a qualitative study of the perspectives of participants in the Dallas Uterus Transplant Study. BJOG2022; 129: 1095–1102.
58.
FarrRHVazquezCP. Stigma experiences, mental health, perceived parenting competence, and parent-child relationships among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents in the United States. Front Psychol2020; 11: 45.
59.
JohannessonLWallAWarrenAM, et al. Decisions on second pregnancy after uterus transplantation and timing for removal of the uterus-DUETS (Dallas Uterus Transplant Study). BJOG2021; 128: 1610–1614.
JarvholmSWarrenAM. Uterus transplantation: lessons learned from a psychological perspective. Clin Obstet Gynecol2022; 65: 52–58.
62.
WallAEJohannessonLWarrenAM, et al. Experience of Pregnancy after Uterus Transplantation. J Am Coll Surg2019; 229: e17.
63.
JonesBPRajamanoharanAValiS, et al. Perceptions and motivations for uterus transplant in transgender women. JAMA Netw Open2021; 4: e2034561.
64.
MooreFD. Three ethical revolutions: ancient assumptions remodeled under pressure of transplantation. Transplant Proc1988; 20: 1061–1067. Historical Article.
DorafsharAHJahromiAHHorenSR, et al. Strategic planning and essential steps for establishing a uterine transplant and rehabilitation program: from idea to reality. Ann Surg2022; 276: 74–80.
67.
BenyaminiYGozlanMKokiaE. Variability in the difficulties experienced by women undergoing infertility treatments. Fertil Steril2005; 83: 275–283.
68.
NewtonCRSherrardWGlavacI. The fertility problem inventory: measuring perceived infertility-related stress. Fertil Steril1999; 72: 54–62.
69.
YingLYWuLHLokeAY. The experience of Chinese couples undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment: perception of the treatment process and partner support. PLoS One2015; 10: e0139691.
70.
PetersK. In pursuit of motherhood: the IVF experience. Contemp Nurse2003; 14: 258–270.
71.
ZemyarskaMS. Is it ethical to provide IVF add-ons when there is no evidence of a benefit if the patient requests it?J Med Ethics2019; 45: 346–350.
72.
WilsonNKSchulzPWallA, et al. Immunosuppression in uterus transplantation: experience from the Dallas Uterus Transplant Study. Transplantation2023; 107: 729–736.
