Indeed, while this first uterine transplant in the United States is a “huge and exciting breakthrough,” and while “the folks at Cleveland Clinic should be congratulated,” the possibility of this procedure ever being covered by insurance and being available to women outside of the research protocol is questionable, especially given the available alternatives, such as gestational carriers and surrogacy, Dr. David A. Forstein, a reproductive endocrinologist at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, said in an interview.
In a patient-centered model, this “tremendous, wonderful gift from science” would give patients – like the 1 in 5,000 women in the United States who are born without a uterus – a very viable alternative, but the question is whether having one’s own children is a right, and whether extensive financial resources should be committed to helping women achieve that, he said.
Dr. Charles E. Miller, a reproductive endocrinologist in Chicago, and head of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge, Ill., agreed that this transplant is to be celebrated.
“It’s a big moment, to say the least,” he said in an interview.
But Dr. Miller also questioned the feasibility of the procedure and whether society will “look favorably upon donation,” given the availability of alternatives for which there is now great success.
“I salute the pioneering effort,” he said, “But at the end of the day, can society take on this burden of a procedure performed not to sustain life, but to help create life? That’s a tough one.”