Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Should uterus transplants be publicly funded?

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Should uterus transplants be publicly funded?

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>09/2016
<mark>Journal</mark>Journal of Medical Ethics
Issue number9
Volume42
Number of pages7
Pages (from-to)559-565
Publication StatusPublished
Early online date15/12/15
<mark>Original language</mark>English

Abstract

Since 2000, eleven human uterine transplantation procedures (UTx) have been performed across Europe and Asia. Five of these have, to date, resulted in pregnancy and four live births have now been recorded. The most significant obstacles to the availability of UTx are presently scientific and technical, relating to the safety and efficacy of the procedure itself.
However, if and when such obstacles are overcome, the most likely barriers to its availability will be social and financial in nature, relating in particular to the ability and willingness of patients, insurers, or the state to pay. Thus, publicly funded healthcare systems such as the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) will eventually have to decide whether UTx should be funded.

With this in mind, we seek to provide an answer to the question of whether there exist any compelling reasons for the state not to fund UTx. The paper proceeds as follows. It assumes, at least for the sake of argument, that UTx will become sufficiently safe and cost-effective to be a candidate for funding and then asks, given that, what objections to funding there might be.

Three main arguments are considered and ultimately rejected as providing insufficient reason to withhold funding for UTx. The first two are broad in their scope and offer an opportunity to reflect on wider issues about funding for infertility treatment in general. The third is narrower in scope and could, in certain forms, apply to UTx but not other assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). The first argument suggests that UTx should not be publicly funded because doing so would be inconsistent with governments’ obligations to
prevent climate change and environmental pollution. The second claims that UTx does not treat a disorder and is not medically necessary. Finally, the third asserts that funding for UTx should be denied because of the availability of alternatives such as adoption and surrogacy.