×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

World-First: Woman Becomes Pregnant After Ovarian Tissue Graft

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the cabbage-patch dept.

Medicine 87

brindafella writes "When an Australian woman, Vali, was diagnosed with cancer, and treated, she was not looking at a good outcome. Yet, TWO cancer treatments later, she is pregnant with twin girls. Her ovaries were sectioned and frozen before the cancer treatment. She has had her own flesh implanted outside her pelvis. Eggs were gathered, IVF techniques used later with her male partner, and her uterus is now carrying two viable girls due to be born in about 3 months. Melbourne IVF's Associate Professor Kate Stern has explained the process today."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

87 comments

A Fetus Holocaust (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44740751)

How many unborn children died in test tubes died for this?

Just kidding. I don't have a problem with in vitro fertilization.

I just want to make sure that when whores fuck, they are punished with a child for the rest of their lives.

Re:A Fetus Holocaust (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44740773)

I have a problem with it. There are enough children being that we don't need to push for more.

Re:A Fetus Holocaust (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44740863)

Especially ones from diseased genetic stock. WTF were they thinking?

swim from cuba to US (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 8 months ago | (#44740919)

why are we talking about this when we should be talking about the woman who was the first person to swim from cuba to US? 52 hours and she's 64 years old!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/sports/nyad-completes-cuba-to-florida-swim.html?hp [nytimes.com]

Re:swim from cuba to US (-1, Flamebait)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 8 months ago | (#44741017)

Susie Maroney already did it in half the time. Granted, she used a shark cage that might have affected the water resistance, but grandma Nyad proves that you're never too old to be an attention whore

Re:swim from cuba to US (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 8 months ago | (#44741135)

but grandma Nyad proves that you're never too old to be an attention whore

The Internet is the beast with a million assholes.

Re:swim from cuba to US (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 8 months ago | (#44741643)

Susie Maroney already did it in half the time. Granted, she used a shark cage that made it much less dangerous and not as cool an accomplishment.

it's like tightwalking with a net or without a net. which one is cooler?

Re:swim from cuba to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44742741)

The feat doesn't seem to be one of danger as much as endurance.

Re:swim from cuba to US (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 8 months ago | (#44745569)

Nyad had boats around her deploying some sort of electrical shark barrier, and unfortunately Castro did not think it was the right time to reveal his fleet of laser-equipped sharks

Re:swim from cuba to US (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 8 months ago | (#44746009)

she also had to deal with stinging box jellyfish that stung her face and hands. have you ever done anything like this? i dont think so so stfu unless you can demonstrate some personal initiative.

Re:swim from cuba to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44741303)

why are we talking about this when we should be talking about the woman who was the first person to swim from cuba to US? 52 hours and she's 64 years old!

This is not news. It was in the "Benjamin Button" movie.

Re:swim from cuba to US (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about 8 months ago | (#44749795)

why are we talking about this when we should be talking about the woman who was the first person to swim from cuba to US? 52 hours and she's 64 years old!

That's slower than 1 hour per year!

Re:A Fetus Holocaust (1)

negRo_slim (636783) | about 8 months ago | (#44741031)

Exactly. A giant middle finger to society and the world-at-large all in the name of ME-FIRST.

Re:A Fetus Holocaust (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44741669)

A giant middle finger to society and the world-at-large all in the name of ME-FIRST.

The same society that gave us slavery, genocide, abuse based on any sort of meaningless difference in color, race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, hair style, clothing, choice of music, choice of fast food restaurant, enjoyment or lack thereof of shitty wizard-based fantasy novels or sparkly vampire softcore porn?

Fuck society. I not only give a giant middle finger to society, but I shit on society. Juno's cunt, I piss down society's throat.

Re:A Fetus Holocaust (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | about 8 months ago | (#44742603)

What's your idea of diseased genetic stock? Everyone has to die of something, very few humans will die of old age without having suffered from heart disease, diabetes, cancer, or some other health related issue first which has at least some genetic predisposition factors involved.

Re:A Fetus Holocaust (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44741007)

I have a problem with you. You appear to be pig-ignorant, and are just mindlessly repeating environmental scare stories which have been constantly recycled since the 1960s. They were completely wrong then, and they're wrong now. But you wouldn't understand me if I told you why - not because you couldn't understand, but because you wouldn't want to....

Re:A Fetus Holocaust (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44741219)

I agree. We should start by having you retroactively aborted.

Re:A Fetus Holocaust (1)

DrStoooopid (1116519) | about 8 months ago | (#44747707)

So you reserve the right to say who should and shouldn't be a parent? Simply based on a population number? ...and I'm sure you're probably in the same group of people that say if we require birth-control for foodstamp and welfare recipients is wrong?

Obviously she WANTS to be a parent, unlike the whores that go out and get knocked up because they were being stupid bitches, and then have their baby-cannon scraped "Because I'm not ready for a baby"....well then YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN FUCKING WITHOUT BIRTH-CONTROL, idiot...and then bitch about not being able to have kids later. Well no shit you can't have kids, your uterus looks like it was cleaned with a cheese grater.

You can't punish one group who want to be good parents, when you have another, less-intelligent group, who are knockin' out babies like it's a hobby and raise little animals that dont' know how to behave.

Re:A Fetus Holocaust (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 8 months ago | (#44753079)

Just kidding. I don't have a problem with in vitro fertilization.

I just want to make sure that when whores fuck, they are punished with a child for the rest of their lives.

. . . An then you want them to die, to atone for your sins. FOAD

Good and bad. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44740821)

It is good that science saved her and empowered her to have children. There is no denying that this is a win.

It *also* means that whatever genetic predispositions to cancer she may have had were likely passed on to her children, who are now more likely than others to get cancer and need the same treatment.

This does not make the science bad, nor its use bad. But it clearly is bad. Future generations will be looking at dating pools full of people with genetic predispositions for all kinds of expensive and life-threatening diseases. We are actively creating this future, which is unfortunate. However, any means of getting in front of this problem and ensuring the genetic health of future generations is either ruthlessly incompassionate or frighteningly mad-scientisty (or both).

 

Re:Good and bad. (3, Insightful)

lnunes (1897628) | about 8 months ago | (#44740901)

There is a Star Trek: TNG episode where LaForge gets stranded in a planet with a romulan, which says to him that should he have been born a romulan he would never be allowed to develop/grow up, due to having his genetic defect in his eyes.

The logic behind was very similar to yours. I found it cruel when I watched it, and I still do, but it's hard to deny the benefits to society.

Re:Good and bad. (0)

Truekaiser (724672) | about 8 months ago | (#44741003)

Well here is the thing.
It would of happened in nature anyway, if he was born as any other animal he would of died young. If humans were still living as we were when we first came onto the planet, he would of.

Re:Good and bad. (3, Interesting)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 8 months ago | (#44741073)

Well here is the thing. It would of happened in nature anyway, if he was born as any other animal he would of died young. If humans were still living as we were when we first came onto the planet, he would of.

"Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above."

Re:Good and bad. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44741279)

Nature has also provided us biological tools that enable us to resolve these problems for ourselves. To suggest we should not because it's "not how nature works" is to deny our natural abilities.

Re:Good and bad. (3, Insightful)

Truekaiser (724672) | about 8 months ago | (#44741733)

Acknowledging a fact, and advocating for it are two different things. I hope one day you realize the difference.

I Acknowledge that from 100,000 years ago to roughly 10,000 years ago being born blind or with any such handicap was a death sentence. If not by nature then by fellow tribesmen who can't afford to take on an extra burden of someone who can't do anything.
I Acknowledge that from about 10,000 years ago to only 200 or so years ago, being born with a handicap entitled you to a short life at worst. At best depending on your class, creed, and culture you might live a semi productive life.

We have the tools now to overcome our limitations, but those won't last long. How long is up to debate.
So I Acknowledge the fact that without those tools we will be back to viewing those things as burdens.
Yet with them a handicapped person, baring prevention by class and creed, can live a full productive life.

Do I advocate for those things to happen? No, I do admit that these facts exist.
I admit that while wrong to anthromorphize nature by saying nature doesn't care, but it is the best way to describe it.

Re: Good and bad. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 8 months ago | (#44741953)

You aren't anthropomorphanizing nature in that. Nature doesn't have feelings so it litterally doesn't care. Other then that, i agree

Re:Good and bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44744253)

My mistake. Given the obviousness of the fact presented, that you repeat yourself more generally having already established your point (a common mistake for those with poor writing skills), and the dimwitted misuse of the word "of" three times, I incorrectly assumed you weren't capable of articulating yourself more eloquently. My humblest of apologies, oh wise enforcer of logic.

Re:Good and bad. (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 8 months ago | (#44754599)

I Acknowledge that from 100,000 years ago to roughly 100 years from now being born [DELETE: blind or with any such handicap] has been a death sentence.

FTFY

Life can be accurately described as a sexually transmitted disease with 100% mortality. It may not be a confidence-inspiring description, but it is accurate.
The existence of IVF techniques is the first significant modification to matters, and that still depends on most of the apparatus of sex (reduction division of genomes to form gametes ; combination of gametes to form a zygote ; development of the zygote). There is progress on treating the disease of "aging", but we've been working on it for less than 1000th of the duration of our species, so it's less than astonishing that we've made little progress.

Re:Good and bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44742949)

I think you're lucky we can't test for the "would of" genetic flaw, yet. It's would HAVE you illiterate fool. "He would of", Jesus wept.

Re:Good and bad. (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 8 months ago | (#44741133)

I can't believe I'm defending ST:TNG, but the whole point of that episode is that LaForge, despite his birth defect, was still one of the most, if not the most competent non-android on The Enterprise. Sure, his visor allowed him to see, so technology bridged the gap (and then some, frankly I couldn't figure out why everyone in the Federation wasn't using them), but LaForge was a highly intelligent man. His blindness didn't make him less intelligent.

My great-grandmother was totally blind from about the age of nine. She lived to be in her early 90s, lead a pretty amazing life, not to mention being one of my sires (which I'm very grateful for). She didn't super-duper technobabble glasses, but she had ropes strung around her yard to guide her along along with other ingenious aids that allowed her to function, and lived on her own for six or seven years after her second husband died until about six months before she died. She cooked, she cleaned and raised two children. She was also an incredible musician who could play just about any damned instrument; violin, concertina, guitar, piano, recorder. I feel very lucky that I got to know her.

The one thing I learned from all of this is that you cannot tell what a person, even with some fairly substantial disability will be capable of. I don't want to live in the kind of society that would have viewed that woman as a burden.

Re:Good and bad. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44741397)

My great-grandmother was totally blind from about the age of nine. She lived to be in her early 90s, lead a pretty amazing life, not to mention being one of my sires (which I'm very grateful for).

Technology is really out of control if your great-grandmother sired you. Even if she was your dam, that's still pretty wrong. Sire is your direct father. Dam is your mother. Damsire is your mother's father. Your great-grandmother shouldn't be any of these. You only have one sire.

Re:Good and bad. (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 8 months ago | (#44741473)

Would you still be grateful if you went blind when you were 9 too?

Re: Good and bad. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 8 months ago | (#44741981)

Some people look at a pile of lemons and decide to make lemonade. Would you be gratefull if you could live from age nine until eighty something with a disability or would you prefere death?

Re: Good and bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44747991)

Which disability? Don't put them all on the same pedestal.

Re:Good and bad. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44741763)

ST:TNG played the Aaron Spelling type of morality play, which is why it is nicknamed 90210 In Space. This kind of morality play is skin deep, cynical almost, because of entertainment purposes only, serial programming with a hypocrite sauce of morality slapped to it. This may appeal to high school kids. In the real world it is cynical, because not everybody is rich and beautiful like in 90210, or capable and beautiful like in ST:TNG.

In the real world of birth defects, the results are not always beautiful. Sometimes, I dare you, there is even suffering.

Re:Good and bad. (1)

rpstrong (1659205) | about 8 months ago | (#44752667)

Sure, his visor allowed him to see, so technology bridged the gap (and then some, frankly I couldn't figure out why everyone in the Federation wasn't using them),...

I was only an irregular viewer, but I was under the impression that using the visor caused severe headaches - and that he would take it off when he could.

Re:Good and bad. (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 8 months ago | (#44754633)

I can't believe I'm defending ST:TNG,

Neither can I, and I have only sat through a few episodes when that's what other people have been watching in the smoking room.

but the whole point of that episode is that LaForge, despite his birth defect, [yadda, yadda] but LaForge was a highly intelligent man. His blindness didn't make him less intelligent.

I thought that the point of that episode, of which I only saw a few minutes of before going into my book then finishing my fag and going back to work, was that LaForge (is that the character, or the actor? Meh.) was fitted with the visor [unique prototype?] as an infant, long before his potentials were realised.

So that's another lose for state-provided universal healthcare. It must be such an un-appealing idea for Hollywood to refer to it so often as if it were a good thing. Isn't it good that the land of Hollywood has 40% of it's population without healthcare provision, to protect them from being communists.

Re:Good and bad. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44740963)

God forbid that our science and technology help people achieve something that is denied to them because of a genetic problem. Maybe we've already arrived at your 'future generations' problem.

Perhaps we should do away with hospitals and let the survival of the fittest rule once again?

Re:Good and bad. (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 8 months ago | (#44741147)

The thing is that we have evidence that even Neandertals looked after their sick. Sure there were some societies like the Spartans who used eugenics of some kind to strengthen the master race, but even in the Classical world they were viewed with a measure of fear and loathing (and ultimately it didn't help them when the Romans came rolling into town).

Re:Good and bad. (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 8 months ago | (#44754655)

Sure there were some societies like the Spartans who used eugenics of some kind to strengthen the master race,

... and they suffered the population problems that went with it. The Spartans proper were outnumbered around 100 to 1 by their slave workforce, the helots [wikipedia.org]. Towards the end of the Hellenistic period the ratio may have been worse.

(and ultimately it didn't help them when the Romans came rolling into town).

It was Phillip of Macedon (father of Alexander, called "the Great") who came rolling in and effectively wiped the Spartans off the map. I don't think that he exterminated them, but I don't recall them being a significant force after that, and their lauded military prowess didn't do anything of note against the Macedonian phalanges.

Several hundred years later, the Romans came to town.

Re:Good and bad. (2)

mpeskett (1221084) | about 8 months ago | (#44741019)

Look at the right period in history, and myopia would have been a serious impairment. Guess we'd have been better of not inventing glasses, and not allowing the short-sighted to breed.

Re:Good and bad. (1, Troll)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 8 months ago | (#44741111)

Except that myopia is easily corrected through learning how to use your eyes. Glasses were originally meant as a tool, not the modern crutch that leads to a billion dollar business.

Re:Good and bad. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 8 months ago | (#44741205)

I'm quite myopic due to astigmatism (I have misshapen eyeballs, which also have me at a much higher risk of detached retinas). There is no using my eyes another way. Before the invention of corrective lenses, I would have been functionally blind beyond perhaps 36 to 48 inches. There's no fix, no magic eyeball situps. I have no idea what you've read, but it ain't reality.

Re:Good and bad. (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 8 months ago | (#44741635)

I've been reading scientific studies, some as far back as a century ago. You have probably only been listening to doctors or opthamologists with outdated knowledge and a vested interest in keeping you coming back for more. Those are the doctors that said I would be blind by the time I reached my 30's. Almost 40 now.

Have you ever disected eyeballs? They don't really hold their shape. Shape is determined by the cavity, muscles, and production and drainage of fluid.

Astigmatism is a little harder to correct since there's more imbalance of the muscles so it's less about degree of tension and more about proper co-ordination of muscles. I have to admit that while I've been able to correct my eyesight enough to see without glasses for the past 7 years, it's only been this last year that I've been able to get rid of flares and double/treble/quad.etc images from the astigmatism at night.

Investigate it yourself if you really care about your health. Of course, most people don't care about taking responsability for themselves.

Re:Good and bad. (1)

blackest_k (761565) | about 8 months ago | (#44741995)

Is it possible that the problem with your eyes was inherited from your great grandmother, i'm guessing the whys of why she was blind from age 9 would have not been asked much once it was established that she would have to live with it. So it's unlikely to know if the 2 issues are related or coincidental .

My parents both need glasses but both me and my brother have better than 20/20 vision although my sister has needed glasses most of her life. Which kind of demonstrates the foolishness of the idea of terminating a gene line for the sake of some idea of genetic purity.

myself I only hope we can keep the mix flowing and we can evolve beyond the tribal values our society seems to hold on to. Seems that we are all share common ancestors but we still generally manage to dehumanise people from outside of our national boundaries. I accept the fact I am of mixed race although the races are largely a mix of Irish , English, Scots , Welsh and French that I know of. Many American families are also mixed race having in general European ancestors.

There is no degree of certainty that the twins that are to be welcomed into this world will suffer with cancer especially since half their genes is from the father.

Re:Good and bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44741071)

The question, which is in my head right now is: How likely is her cancer to metastasize into the unborn child. Maybe I will sound harsh with this, but this looks a bit selfish in my view. Just think of the future of the child.

Re:Good and bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44751327)

The question, which is in my head right now is: How likely is her cancer to metastasize into the unborn child. Maybe I will sound harsh with this, but this looks a bit selfish in my view. Just think of the future of the child.

...and in mine - also if her cancer takes her that baby will have no Mommy.

Re:Good and bad. (1)

godel_56 (1287256) | about 8 months ago | (#44741187)

It is good that science saved her and empowered her to have children. There is no denying that this is a win.

It *also* means that whatever genetic predispositions to cancer she may have had were likely passed on to her children, who are now more likely than others to get cancer and need the same treatment.

Who said she must have had genetic dispositions to cancer? Sometime shit just happens. Outside of a Larry Niven novel I don't believe in a "lucky" gene, but people win the lottery every week.

This does not make the science bad, nor its use bad. But it clearly is bad. Future generations will be looking at dating pools full of people with genetic predispositions for all kinds of expensive and life-threatening diseases. We are actively creating this future, which is unfortunate. However, any means of getting in front of this problem and ensuring the genetic health of future generations is either ruthlessly in-compassionate or frighteningly mad-scientisty (or both).

Nah, it's just expensive. I don't regard a ball of maybe 32 cells and no nervous system, is fully qualified as a human being, entitled to my consideration. BTW, what's the percentage of early term pregnancies that spontaneously miscarriage anyway?

Wikipedia says: "The National Institutes of Health report that "around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage

But if you're worried about the growing unfitness of the human race, I'm expecting a massive cull happening during the environmental collapse that's coming in the later part of this century will sort things out.

Re:Good and bad. (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 8 months ago | (#44754665)

Outside of a Larry Niven novel I don't believe in a "lucky" gene, but different people win the lottery every week.

FTFY

It is an important point in the novels. But also ... look at what ultimately happened to her.

But if you're worried about the growing unfitness of the human race, I'm expecting a massive cull happening during the environmental collapse that's coming in the later part of this century will sort things out.

Doesn't worry me ; I've not put any cards in that deck. Deliberately.

Re:Good and bad. (1)

Zordak (123132) | about 8 months ago | (#44741285)

It *also* means that whatever genetic predispositions to cancer she may have had were likely passed on to her children, who are now more likely than others to get cancer and need the same treatment. This does not make the science bad, nor its use bad. But it clearly is bad.

Unless one of the twins comes up with the cure for cancer. Or solves the Grand Unified Field Theory. Or spends her life traveling the world feeding starving orphans. Perhaps you and I have different definitions of "clearly."

Re:Good and bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44746337)

Unless one of the twins comes up with the cure for cancer. Or solves the Grand Unified Field Theory. Or spends her life traveling the world feeding starving orphans.

She could also turn out to be a mass murderer. Or a terrorist. Or an otherwise good-for-nothing asshole.
In fact, she is more likely to become one of the latters rather than one of the formers, statistically speaking.

Re:Good and bad. (1)

Prune (557140) | about 8 months ago | (#44741419)

I agree with you. This sort of treatment should be given only conditional to mandatory submission to genetic screening of embryos.

Re:Good and bad. (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | about 8 months ago | (#44741847)

Many people are reproducing without IVF intervention who would not have survived to do so in earlier times, either because they were born prematurely, would have died of a childhood illness or any number of other factors. Many cancers that appear are a result of surviving long enough for them to exhibit, where previously you would have died of something else before the cancer popped up it's ugly head.

The majority of cancer sufferers are diagnosed will after they hit puberty, meaning they can reproduce and pass on the genes long before they know they will be hit.

Mean while, science is getting better at identifying and treating cancer earlier and with less impact. I say this as someone who was treated for cancer earlier this year and hasn't as yet (touch wood) needed chemo because of how early it was caught.

Re:Good and bad. (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 8 months ago | (#44743269)

Unless you are a Tasmanian Devil and go around biting others on the face you don't have to worry about cancer being contagious. Also there are only a few cancers that have been identified as being more likely to affect some people and not others, this is not one of them, so your comment about passing on a predispositions to cancer does not appear to have any foundation in this situation. Also go back far enough or wide enough and everyone has a family history of cancer - there are plenty of different types and plenty of causes.

Re:Good and bad. (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 8 months ago | (#44754687)

Unless you are a Tasmanian Devil and go around biting others on the face you don't have to worry about cancer being contagious.

HPV? (Human PapillomaVirus)

(And there are probably others, if less clearly associated with cancers.)

Re:Good and bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44754277)

I've been saying similar things for a long time... Like it or not, we are breeding a future of mixed fortunes, some good, some not so good - but can you have one without the other??

As for this lady, if she had had children when she was younger, we wouldn't be discussing this - which isn't better as the problem would still be there!

Wacky Australia... (1)

rts008 (812749) | about 8 months ago | (#44740929)

She has had her own flesh implanted outside her pelvis.

So, she is now like a kangaroo, with a pouch?

What's next? Cloning drop bears?!?!?

Re:Wacky Australia... (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 8 months ago | (#44741081)

What's next? Cloning drop bears?!?!?

Is that some kind of man-in-the-middle attack on SSH?

Re:Wacky Australia... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 8 months ago | (#44745709)

No, it is not. [lmgtfy.com]

If you're resistant to clicking the link, it's a funny nickname for koalas, implying that they are (as a joke, because they are not) vicious horror-movie terrors that ambush unsuspecting tourists by dropping on to them from the canopy.

Re:Wacky Australia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44744049)

There is no need to clone dropbears. Due to the massive amount of mining, more radioactive tailings are littering the bush, resulting in more radioactive koalas.

Outside?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44740999)

Awww.. outside.. that's not as much fun then.

-- Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.

Seems like a lot of costly work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44741095)

...when you could just freeze some eggs and sperm for a surrogate, no?

Re:Seems like a lot of costly work... (1)

godel_56 (1287256) | about 8 months ago | (#44742119)

...when you could just freeze some eggs and sperm for a surrogate, no?

She was in her early twenties when she got cancer, no life partner as yet acquired.

Also giving her hormone treatment to make her hyper-ovulate in order to collect her eggs for IVF might have accelerated the growth of her cancer.

You did not even read it. (1)

brindafella (702231) | about 8 months ago | (#44745961)

Oh, no. I posted this so that people like you could READ it, and make sensible comments.

To make it easier, get REAL CLOSE to the screen, so the letters are bigger.

Her ovaries were REMOVED, SECTIONED (cut into slices) and FROZEN. AFTERher cancer treatments, the SLICES were RE-IMPLANTED in her ABDOMEN (the part behind the BELLY-BUTTON) and, with FURTHER TREATMENT, then the ovary cells RE-ACTIVATED. EGGS were REMOVED AND FERTILISED, and were IMPLANTED in her WOMB. She has TWO BABIES growing inside her, now.

Now, go and read the longer version, at the links. There is also video, if you can't be bothered reading any more.

Re:Seems like a lot of costly work... (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | about 8 months ago | (#44742587)

In Australia you cannot get Medicare funding for a pregnancy where a surrogate or donor eggs are used afaik. This is based on information I was given while trying IVF a few years ago, and from a friend who was having to use a surrogate. They ended up using a surrogate from Thailand because the parental rights laws in Australia are tricky and you can't contract for a surrogate.

Cool, but . . . (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 8 months ago | (#44741121)

This is a pretty interesting development, but I'll be a lot more impressed when I read the headline: "World-First: Man Becomes Pregnant After Ovarian Tissue Graft"

Re:Cool, but . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44741613)

One step at a time. First we need to graft a vagina onto the palm of the hand.

So /. is reporting on Zebras these days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44741241)

A Zebra is a term used for something uncommon or rare. "When you hear hoof-beats, think of horses not zebras". This is a zebra...

We can find odds things to report on all year long. THIS is more like commercial for the physicians involved in the management rather than a milestone scientific achievement.

Moving on...

I realize this is Australia (1, Interesting)

HangingChad (677530) | about 8 months ago | (#44741263)

In the U.S. if we can deny using federal funds for abortion, we should also have the right to demand they not be used for fertility treatments.

I was flabbergasted at first (4, Interesting)

jonr (1130) | about 8 months ago | (#44741325)

I thought she had become pregnant by accident, that hers or the donators eggs had somehow be fertilized....

Re:I was flabbergasted at first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44741937)

I came here expecting a story about parthenogenesis.

Instead, I got a story about a woman getting pregnant via boring every-day sex with a man.

IVF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44745979)

It was IVF. Most likely he was watching a video and holding a cup.

I was flabbergasted (2)

brindafella (702231) | about 8 months ago | (#44745987)

There was a time when Slashdot was for people to bring interesting and informative things, or to ask good questions and get good advice. (That is why I bothered to submit this report of a world-first procedure.)

And, then people like you came along.

READ what the story is about; watch and listen to the video.

Frankenovaries (0)

b4upoo (166390) | about 8 months ago | (#44741549)

This does sound like a monster movie in the making. External ovaries seem over the edge to me. The only reason i think it needs to be permitted is that usually such procedures lead to easier and saner solutions.
                  The second reality is that there is nothing more vile or evil than having a baby. We have a population bomb that is now exploding. We need to be active in preventing child births and applying penalties to those who reproduce without permission. If we continue on the belief paths by which we now function we will cause unparalleled horrors, poverty, disease and war as well as starvation on a scale never before seen in history. We can either refrain from making babies or get used to cooking and eating newborns.

Re:Frankenovaries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44741691)

That's not very nice! Think of the unclothed children that you could sew shirts for!

You have to skin them before you eat them.

Re:Frankenovaries (2)

iggymanz (596061) | about 8 months ago | (#44741861)

pure nonsense, you have bought into the agenda of the mankind-haters. The truth is prosperity lowers the birth rate, the birth rate for those of european descent in the USA is below the rate needed to sustain a growing population. The 2nd derivative of the population growth curve shows the world population will peak in the 2070s around 8.5 billion people then decline. There is thus no problem with babies being born, and even the resource scarcity arguments assume that metals and whatnot disappear from the planet after first use. The crust of the earth is 20 miles thick, no shortage of anything. Of course, if you or like minded people really are so bent out of shape over so many human lives, feel free to off yourself. Take a load of 00 buck in the face for the team.

Re:Frankenovaries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44742951)

Just because you can't find anyone who is willing to have sex with you, doesn't mean that having children is a burden. Heck, one can look at the retiring baby boomers, there are fewer and fewer tax payers to pay for the rising social security, Canada pension plan, and various other government retirement aid programs. So to meet your goals, we'd also have to kill everyone at 65 so that they aren't a burden to society. Thus no children no old folks, just good productive members of society, at least for about 47 years, when the last productive member of society reaches 65 and is forced to shoot him or herself in the head since there is no one left to do it for them.

Heroic effort vs adoption. (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about 8 months ago | (#44741853)

We as a society should not pay for heroic efforts to restore fertility. There are a lot of kids suffering out there with no or with shitty evil parents.

Re:Heroic effort vs adoption. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44742501)

We as a society should not pay for heroic efforts to restore fertility. There are a lot of kids suffering out there with no or with shitty evil parents.

Sorry, but we evolved not to do that.

And just to go all eugenics on you, do we really want to evolutionarily promote making lots of children and putting them up for adoption? I'd rather evolutionarily promote people who can and do go to heroic efforts to have and care for their own children.

That said, I'm hoping we can be done with this shitty evolutionary process already, and get some real engineering involved.

Re:Heroic effort vs adoption. (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about 8 months ago | (#44747955)

We're at a point where culture and upbringing will have a far greater impact on humanity's future than evolutionary pressures.

And who, exactly, do you think it is that is breeding like rabbits? Hint: It's not well educated middle class or above people.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...