the brilliantly leaping gazelle

I’ve never had any desire to have children.

Some people do and that’s laudable. There are countless children put up for adoption every year which means the need is there, so why, one wonders, aren’t more people adopting? But to some, that isn’t the same thing as having a child of one’s own, because at some future date the birth mother might herself known to the child with potentially catastrophic consequences. And more importantly, the adoptive parents will know the child isn’t theirs and no matter how much they convince themselves it is theirs, will know deep down it isn’t.

But thankfully, we now live in a world in which nature can increasingly be circumvented. I myself am living proof of this. By rights I should’ve died years ago after my accident had I not been put into a medically induced coma for a month. But that was a medical emergency whereas this post is about elective procedures – one’s that the patient chooses to have – and more specifically, one reported in The Guardian on Wednesday which I think is both indicative of the times we live in and a warning of the danger of unforeseen consequences.

“Woman ‘over the moon’ after sister donates womb in UK first” ran the headline about a woman with an ‘undeveloped womb’ who had her sisters womb donated to her. Everyone concerned was absolutely thrilled with how it all went and presumably this news was only revealed after a suitable interval and exhaustive tests had confirmed all was well. There have been ninety of these transplants around the world, leading to fifty births and it is hoped that this ‘pioneering operation could allow dozens of infertile women a year to have babies.’ The co-lead surgeon, Isabel Quigora claims that women have already been in touch with the charity that helped fund this to offer donate their wombs.

Therein lies one of the problems I have with this. Yes, if they’ve already have had their children or know that they never will have them in the first place, then offering to donate their womb is their choice. But is it a choice they should even be allowed to make? Did I miss something, possibly when I was in the coma? When was the public ever consulted about this? Maybe there was and ‘Google’ can’t find them. Apparently, ‘they were also assessed by a Human Tissue Authority (HTA) independent assessor to ensure they were aware of the risks and to confirm they were entering into the surgery of their own free will. The case was reviewed by an HTA panel before permission was granted to proceed.’ Exactly how reassuring is that? How many times has a HTA panel said no? And who is on that panel anyway?

According to their own website, the board of the HTA from which the panel comprises is made up of exactly the sort of people one would expect to find on it. Anyone who is chosen to sit on a board like this will have been exhaustively vetted to make sure they’re the ‘right’ sort of person. ‘Right’ meaning someone equipped with the ability to understand all the issues involved, and by dint of that, reliable enough not to rock the boat too much.

But whoever they get approval from, whatever hoops they have to jump through or what self-serving criteria has to be met, giving infertile women the chance to have a baby has got to be a good thing, doesn’t it? Or is it? Where is it written that whatever you wish for you shall have? If nature has decided motherhood is not for you, then nature can increasingly be ignored, reduced to another obstacle to be overcome.

Science is advancing all the time, so what is impossible today, may not always be so tomorrow. . And it isn’t so much that science is advancing all the time and more that science doesn’t actually exist. Well not in the way that a tree does or in the way that most people understand something to exist. It isn’t one thing. It’s an umbrella term used as a shorthand for a complicated series of nebulous theories, hypothesises and postulations are constantly being challenged and refined. The people that do this, scientists, are not neutral observers in all of this.

Scientists have an agenda and that is to advance their own careers within the particular field of science they are engaged in. It’s human nature. No footballer wants to be playing non league football, he wants to be playing for Real Madrid, for example. But science is increasingly obviating nature and what it means to be human, and because scientists live in the same society we do are subject to the same, if not more pressure to adhere to the prevailing orthodoxy. So whilst transplanting a womb may seem like a good thing, it ultimately devalues what it it is to be a woman. Because we have no idea where this will lead, so whilst they might be able to transplant a womb today, scientists have already successfully grown a mouse embryo in an artificial womb, uterus transplants are now a thing, meaning it is now theoretically possible for transgender woman to give birth, which will lead to what?

Exactly, no-one knows.

And just to be clear, a woman is a biological female.