Veteran who survived blast receives "world's most extensive" penis scrotum transplant

[cutnbulls2ox (imported)]

I think most potential problems with donors have already been handled in other organ transplants such as hearts, kidneys, hands, and complex transplants. The legal concepts have been addressed in most donor recipient rights with other organs.

Its mainly when the courts clearly break the laws, for example, suddenly making anonymous sperm donors financially liable for any recipient offspring and violating all of the donor and recipient legal contracts and agreements under the baseless claim that the unborn offspring and unfertilized egg and sperm have legal rights that entirely negate the legal agreement, legal rights, and established laws governing donors and recipients at the time of the conception or donation.

You can be baselessly sued for no reason at all under our wildly corrupt judges and court system in the US. Forced to pay overpriced lawyers to defend you from baseless suits that no honest court would allow to go forward. So that can be used to prevent every medical process and treatment and stop all medications if that is the basis to decide what care people can receive in medicine.

I still think a bone marrow or kidney or other offered donation would be treated far more seriously than any genital donation offer would be, and mainly because of attitudes among drs far more than legal or technical issues.

[rogerwpbfl (imported)]

Sorry, I may be ignorant, but once the original sperm of the donor has expired, wouldn't any new sperm carry the genetic code/DNA of their recipient host? Setting aside my perverseness for a minute, if I "donated" my balls to someone I would fully expect their DNA to be carried forward once all my sperm had died. Isn't that how our nuts work? They're going to produce DNA specific to the body they're hanging from. Full disclosure, I'm not studying medicine (but I have played doctor).

[Losethem (imported)]

Sorry, I may be ignorant, but once the original sperm of the donor has expired, wouldn't any new sperm carry the genetic code/DNA of their recipient host? Setting aside my perverseness for a minute, if I "donated" my balls to someone I would fully expect their DNA to be carried forward once all my sperm had died. Isn't that how our nuts work? They're going to produce DNA specific to the body they're hanging from. Full disclosure, I'm not studying medicine (but I have played doctor).

Getting over my gut reaction to simply call you an idiot, I'll explain why what you're saying isn't true.

Let's take a testicle transplant out of the equation for just a minute. Let's say instead we're transplanting a heart. The reason people take anti-rejection medications isn't because it's just another pill the doctor wants to prescribe, it's to suppress the immune response in the recipient body. Often, even with the best tissue typing matches they can possibly get, the body will see the new heart as a foreign object which needs to be attacked and gotten rid of.

Now let's move onto transplanted balls. They are not going to magically take on the DNA profile of the recipient. They too could be attacked by the bodies immune response, meaning, the body sees them as a foreign object to be gotten rid of, just like the heart above. The transplanted organs retain the DNA profile of the donor, as such, that's where the ethical issue comes in for transplanting testicles. Even though the recipient of the donor balls was the one doing the fucking, what will be ejaculated is the DNA profile of the Donor. In effect, the recipient is causing involuntary fatherhood for the donor. Given the legal system is having a good 'ole time sticking even non-DNA donors with child support bills, a recipient causing a pregnancy by fucking with a donors balls, opens up the donor (or family if the donation came from a deceased person) for being on the hook for child support payments, among other things.

[rogerwpbfl (imported)]

Getting over my gut reaction to simply call you an idiot, I'll explain why what you're saying isn't true.

Let's take a testicle transplant out of the equation for just a minute. Let's say instead we're transplanting a heart. The reason people take anti-rejection medications isn't because it's just another pill the doctor wants to prescribe, it's to suppress the immune response in the recipient body. Often, even with the best tissue typing matches they can possibly get, the body will see the new heart as a foreign object which needs to be attacked and gotten rid of.

Now let's move onto transplanted balls. They are not going to magically take on the DNA profile of the recipient. They too could be attacked by the bodies immune response, meaning, the body sees them as a foreign object to be gotten rid of, just like the heart above. The transplanted organs retain the DNA profile of the donor, as such, that's where the ethical issue comes in for transplanting testicles. Even though the recipient of the donor balls was the one doing the fucking, what will be ejaculated is the DNA profile of the Donor. In effect, the recipient is causing involuntary fatherhood for the donor. Given the legal system is having a good 'ole time sticking even non-DNA donors with child support bills, a recipient causing a pregnancy by fucking with a donors balls, opens up the donor (or family if the donation came from a deceased person) for being on the hook for child support payments, among other things.

Thanks for not calling me an idiot.

[cutnbulls2ox (imported)]

Yes the DNA inside the cells that make and hatch out endless new sperm would always have the genetics of the man those balls were born attached to. But I think most men would want to impregnate their wives manually if possible and fully enjoy their reproduction as much as possible. Once a man has lost both balls or is sterile, the only way to have kids is by adopting other men s genetic kids or using other men s sperm to impregnate women. Using his new donor balls and sperm attached to his body sure beats watching a dr use a tube of another man s sperm to artificially inseminate his wife.

Why would you be an idiot ? No one teaches testicle donation 101 in school to men. Why would you know the details of other men s testicle DNA ?

[cutnbulls2ox (imported)]

The same crooked courts have ruined adoptions by forcing the adopting parents to share kids and a lifelong burden of dealing with the biological parents and whole family tree on top of taking sole legal responsibility for the kid. That s why adopting foriegn kids gets more attractive and less of an emotional minefield for adopting parents to deal with for a lifetime. Its ruining domestic adoptions for everyone involved.

Many decades of past laws did make adoption and sperm and egg donation clear cut and legally safe. Its only recently that activist judges are ignoring the laws, legal contracts, and past precedents to wreck those for everyone involved. Now the egg and sperm donors will be forced to stop giving and the healthy supply will dry up. And few people want to adopt whole troubled biological family trees to have one kidwith competing biological parents interfering in raising that adopted kid.

[gandalf (imported)]

A thought crossed my mind just now. If scientists can grow a replacement ear using the person's genes and dna on their arm (or elsewhere) like I have seen in some "scientific posts", why couldn't a man's penis be grown from his own cells somewher on his body and then trasnsplanted where it should be? Probably a foolish question.

[cutnbulls2ox (imported)]

Not foolish at all. That s the whole point of doing that process, to grow new body parts using that person s own DNA.

[cutnbulls2ox (imported)]

Any males with testicular or scrotum damage can face a process very similar to the body rejecting and attacking a donor organ. All males sperm and sperm production cells only contain half of his entire DNA. The female egg supplies the other half of a baby s full DNA. There is a natural barrier in the male body to keep his sperm and sperm production cells separated from his own immune system. His own immune system would attack and digest his own sperm and sperm production cells in his testicles as invaders since they do not contain his full DNA in them.

If a males sperm and immune system barrier is breached by injury or surgery, his own immune system may attack his sperm and his testicles sperm production cells and slowly destroy them. This is what often happens to men after getting a vasectomy. Either the surgery or later blow outs of his built up daily and continuing sperm production can expose his trapped sperm and the inside of his testicles to his immune system. This is exactly how his trapped sperm is supposed and planned to be digested and disposed of by his body after every vasectomy. But in some men, the immune system can also attack his sperm production cells deep inside his balls. This can make him infertile and reconnecting his cut n blocked off vas deferens tubes will not make him fertile again. In most men with vasectomies, this sterility deep inside the testicles usually takes about 10 to 15 years after his vasectomy to occur to a sterility level. Some men s immune systems take longer or shorter times to self castrate his sperm production.

So donor testicles would face what many men with injured testicles and scrotums and nearly all vasectomy men already face in immune system rejection problems. But donor balls entire foriegn tissue would be attacked, not only the sperm and sperm production cells of a man s original balls..

[Uncle Flo (imported)]

A thought crossed my mind just now. If scientists can grow a replacement ear using the person's genes and dna on their arm (or elsewhere) like I have seen in some "scientific posts", why couldn't a man's penis be grown from his own cells somewher on his body and then trasnsplanted where it should be? Probably a foolish question.

There are experiments going on now for just that result. So far rabbit penis(s) have been successfully grown and have "normal" function. --FLO--