Online first
Research paper
Published online: 2024-04-22

open access

Page views 207
Article views/downloads 107
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Motherhood and attitudes towards motherhood in women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome

Weronika Mazurkiewicz1, Urszula Kacprzak1, Karolina Paluchowicz1, Klaudia Purgal-Zaborowska1, Krzysztof Sobczyk1, Julia Sochowska1, Karina Kapczuk2

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the study was to find out what proportion of women with MRKHS have decided to become mothers and have children or would like to have children and consider various options for motherhood. Additionally, the survey aimed at identifying factors that might influence the women’s decisions and opinions regarding adoption, gestational surrogacy (GS) and uterus transplantation (UTx).

Material and methods: The study group consisted of 100 adult women with MRKHS who filled out questionnaires consisting of 56 questions. The survey was self-administered and anonymous.

Results: Most of the study participants were under 30, lived in large cities (> 150 000 inhabitants) and declared to be heterosexuals in a steady relationship (p < 0.05). While 11 participants had children, 66 out of 89 childless women (74%) expressed a desire for motherhood, but as many as 80 surveyed women have felt pressured to have children. The number of participants for whom a biological relationship with offspring was significant and insignificant respectively equaled (p = 1.000). The majority of the study participants supported the process of legalizing GS in Poland (95 vs 4) yet would opt for commercial rather than altruistic GS (64 vs 31) (p < 0.05). Most respondents stated that UTx is consistent with their faith and conscience (91 vs 4) and found UTx ethical (88 vs 4) (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: The majority of Polish women with MRKHS express the need to become a mother, but only one in ten has a child. The women’s interest in biological motherhood is significant.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Morcel K, Camborieux L, Guerrier D. Programme de Recherches sur les Aplasies Müllériennes. Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2007; 2: 13.
  2. Herlin MK, Petersen MB, Brännström M. Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome: a comprehensive update. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020; 15(1): 214.
  3. Ross R, Hess RF. Social Pressure for Pregnancy Scale: Its Development, Psychometric Properties, and Potential Contributions to Infertility and Depression Research. J Nurs Meas. 2019; 27(1): 5–15.
  4. Jones BP, Ranaei-Zamani N, Vali S, et al. Options for acquiring motherhood in absolute uterine factor infertility; adoption, surrogacy and uterine transplantation. Obstet Gynaecol. 2021; 23(2): 138–147.
  5. Reimann M. 'I was with my wife the entire time.' Polish men's narratives of IVF treatment. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2016; 3: 120–125.
  6. Darwiche J, Milek A, Antonietti JP, et al. Partner support during the prenatal testing period after assisted conception. Women Birth. 2019; 32(2): e264–e271.
  7. Doyle J, Pooley JA, Breen L. A phenomenological exploration of the childfree choice in a sample of Australian women. J Health Psychol. 2013; 18(3): 397–407.
  8. Cwikel J, Gidron Y, Sheiner E. Psychological interactions with infertility among women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004; 117(2): 126–131.
  9. Cousineau TM, Domar AD. Psychological impact of infertility. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007; 21(2): 293–308.
  10. Fertility options in Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 48(3): 453.
  11. Petrozza JC, Gray MR, Davis AJ, et al. Congenital absence of the uterus and vagina is not commonly transmitted as a dominant genetic trait: outcomes of surrogate pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 1997; 67(2): 387–389.
  12. Pluta D, Lemm M, Franik G, et al. Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome - case studies, methods of treatment and the future prospects of human uterus transplantation. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020; 24(2): 549–563.
  13. Gromek K. Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy. Komentarz. 7th ed. Legalis, Warszawa 2018.
  14. Marzęcka J, Kalista D, Osuch M, Niemiec E, Seweryn J, Szponder J, Jagiełło M, Niziołek A. Pomoc społeczna i opieka nad dzieckiem i rodziną w 2022 r. Główny Urząd Statystyczny. https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/warunki-zycia/ubostwo-pomoc-spoleczna/pomoc-spoleczna-i-opieka-nad-dzieckiem-i-rodzina-w-2022-roku,10,14.html?pdf=1.
  15. Witeska-Młynarczyk A. Psychiatrization of adoption practices in contemporary Poland. Front Sociol. 2022; 7: 869593.
  16. McSherry D, McAnee G. Exploring the relationship between adoption and psychological trauma for children who are adopted from care: A longitudinal case study perspective. Child Abuse Negl. 2022; 130(Pt 2): 105623.
  17. Jones BP, Ranaei-Zamani N, Vali S, et al. Options for acquiring motherhood in absolute uterine factor infertility; adoption, surrogacy and uterine transplantation. Obstet Gynaecol. 2021; 23(2): 138–147.
  18. Söderström-Anttila V, Wennerholm UB, Loft A, et al. Surrogacy: outcomes for surrogate mothers, children and the resulting families-a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2016; 22(2): 260–276.
  19. Bień A, Pieczykolan A, Grzesik-Gąsior J, et al. Motherhood of women with uterine factor infertility. Pielegniarstwo XXI wieku / Nursing in the 21st Century. 2021; 20(2): 131–135.
  20. Lutkiewicz K, Bieleninik Ł, Jurek P, et al. Development and validation of the attitude towards Surrogacy Scale in a polish sample. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023; 23(1): 413.
  21. Peters HE, Schats R, Verhoeven MO, et al. Gestational surrogacy: results of 10 years of experience in the Netherlands. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018; 37(6): 725–731.
  22. Dermout S, van de Wiel H, Heintz P, et al. Non-commercial surrogacy: an account of patient management in the first Dutch Centre for IVF Surrogacy, from 1997 to 2004. Hum Reprod. 2010; 25(2): 443–449.
  23. Tanderup M, Pande A, Schmidt L, et al. Impact of the war in Ukraine and the COVID-19 pandemic on transnational surrogacy - a qualitative study of Danish infertile couples' experiences of being in 'exile'. Reprod Biomed Online. 2023; 47(4): 103258.
  24. Jones BP, Kasaven L, Vali S, et al. Uterine Transplantation: Review of Livebirths and Reproductive Implications. Transplantation. 2021; 105(8): 1695–1707.
  25. Dion L, Tardieu A, Collinet P, et al. Comité D’étude de la Transplantation Utérine en France (CETUF) du CNGOF. Uterus transplantation and altruistic surrogacy: Are they complementary or alternative options?-A statement from the CNGOF French Uterus Transplantation Committee. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019; 48(5): 293–295.
  26. Lavoué V, Vigneau C, Duros S, et al. Which Donor for Uterus Transplants: Brain-Dead Donor or Living Donor? A Systematic Review. Transplantation. 2017; 101(2): 267–273.
  27. Wennberg AL, Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Milsom I, et al. Attitudes towards new assisted reproductive technologies in Sweden: a survey in women 30-39 years of age. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016; 95(1): 38–44.