Need more explaning for:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2932608.stm
Okay, I understand the pregnancy part, but I have questions like:
Is the baby attached to the liver by an imbellical cord?
What if baby were to grab hold of, oh I dunno, mom’s pancreas and give it a tug?
How is the baby hooked up to mom’s circulatory system?
IANAD, but I found this in the article:
Which I can only interpret as: The baby was attached to the placenta by an umbilical cord. The placenta was attached to the liver and used it as a blood supply, which I hope answers your questions 1) and 3) and I hope I haven’t strayed too much away from truth.
Well, I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m stunned. Just stunned!
:eek:!!!
It sounds like the artile is trying to describe an intra-abdominal ectopic pregnancy. The ovaries aren’t directly linked with the Fallopian tubes, so it is possible (but very unlikely) that a fertilized egg could escape out into the abdominal cavity, where it will implant on an alternative surface. In this case, sounds like it made it all the way to the liver, where the placenta would invade the organ, which is richly perused with blood (some of its functions include synthesizing blood proteins as well as acting as a filter for the blood). The baby’s blood would then circulate into the placenta, where it would exchange gasses/nutrients with the mother’s blood (the two circulations usually don’t mix, but share solutes across a thin membrane).
The baby couldn’t grab hold of the mother’s internal organs, as it would develop within the chorioamniotic membrane, suspended in the amniotic fluid. It’s kinda hard to explain w/o diagrams, put the placenta is sort of on the outside of the membrane “bag” that holds the fetus and the umbilical cord. The cord is the conection between baby and placenta.
Ok, now I HAVE to weigh in on this one. A friends wife (who was in med school at the time) told me about this and we had quite the ethical discussion on the topic. (this was 1989 BTW) So full of it I thought she was that I wrote Cecil and asked about the possibility. I guess the letter was lost in the mail because he never got back to me. The up shot of all this is…
If you can inseminate a human egg outside the womb then what is stopping you from implanting it on a MANS liver? Yes I am suggesting MALE pregnancy! Except for the sociological impact I don’t see why this is not a possibility. But then I’m not a biologist or M.D. so surely I’m missing some finer points here, some one will clue me in shortly I betcha.
They happen. Intra-abdominal pregnancies, that is. Occasionally a viable baby is removed via C-section; most often embryo/fetus die, and mom does too, unless surgical intervention occurs.
From: femalehealthmadesimple.com/ECTOPIC_PREGNANCY.html
(The link isn’t working, but a copy can be found on google)
janx, theoretically one could possibly get an occasional viable infant from implanting on a male’s liver, but one would probably have to sacrifice at least 100 fetuses, along with a significant number of male hosts, to get one success.
Y’know, even with reputable news sources, journalists occasionally get taken in by a hoax. I’m willing to place good money that this is such a case.
Clues:
The reports come from South Africa, a locale not known for journalistic integrity.
The baby is reported to have been “within the placenta”, but the placenta is not an enclosure. The baby would actually have been beside the placenta.
The zygote is said to have “fallen out of the Falllopian tube”. Falling out of the Fallopian tube would place the zygote comfortably within the womb.
The liver is not a “rich source of blood”, since blood is formed in bone marrow. And even assuming that the article meant “there’s a lot of blood in the liver”, I know of no reason to believe that it could supply a growing fetus.
The mother apparently reacted normally to the pregnancy, since it wasn’t known until weeks before delivery that anything was unusual. But don’t the mother’s physiological responses to pregnancy result from the embryo implanting in the womb?
Likewise, the liver has its own functions to perform. Wouldn’t that be impaired by having what’s effectively a very large parasite growing on it?
This is a quite extraordinary claim, and an article from the BBC Online isn’t nearly extraordinary enough evidence for me to buy it.
Oo! Like the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie!
Okay, so to recap:
Baby in baggie. Baby’s bellybutton attached to baggie. Baggie attached to wrong organ…
Mm, okay. That makes more sense. In my mind, I’d pictured the kid just kicking aorund inside the abdominal cavity, playing with intestines and whatnot. “Baby in baggie” is a mental image I can understand better.
So without a C-section does baby just keep growing??? (Now picturing a kid going through the terrible two is one’s chest cavity… faint…)
Waitasec, Chronos got me thinking…
If baby was not implanted in the womb, would the woman not continue to menstruate and still be able to conceive properly in the uterus?
Wouldn’t the diagnosis of the growing mass be thought of as “tumor” long before anyone thought “baby”? Or are there other hormonal things that the baby-baggy also can do to cue the body into knowing that it’s pregnant?
Actually, IIRC from my med school days, most cases where the fetus was viable/near-viable were implanted on the mesentery, which is quite rich in blood vessels.
Here we can see the mesentery, or omentum, on which a placenta may attach.
http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/misc_topics/peritoneum.html
Here’s a case report of an omental pregnancy.
Here we see sonograms of pregnancies implanted on unusual places, like the cervix, or the outside of the uterus.
http://www.obgyn.ufl.edu/ultrasound/4Gyn/1First%20TM/18%20Ectopic%20Rare.html
And here’s a fascinating case of abdominal pregnancy at 16 weeks with the placenta adhering to the outside of the uterus, to the omentum, and to the bowel, complete with pictures.
http://www.hkam.org.hk/publications/hkmj/article_pdfs/hkm0012p425.pdf
This is just a WAG but don’t female hormones play a big role in pregnancy? You’d have to shoot a man up with alot of estrogen for him to carry a child.
The woman wouldn’t menstruate, as the placenta makes HCG, a hormone that signals pregnancy to the mother. It would result in the temporary arrest of her menstrual cycle, just as if the baby were in the uterus. This also means that she'd have a positive pregnancy test.
Yes, tumor would definitely be on the list of things to rule out.So basically, your only option would be an emergency abortion, right?
** Qadgop the Mercotan ** wrote:
See, when I wrote that someone would clue me in, I was hoping it would be ** Qadgop the Mercotan **, who is a real Doctor, but doesn’t play one on T.V. 
** Qadgop the Mercotan ** wrote:
And here we can also see why you shouldn’t eat lunch while reading medical threads on the SDMB, and NO, I don’t want to know why those images appear to be taken from outside the patient.
Thanks for the input ** Qadgop**. By the way, while we have you here, I have this pain that keeps…
** ZipperJJ ** wrote:
I think/thought this too, which is why I threw in the disclaimer about not being a biologist or M.D., but I would like to know. The story in the OP does sound a bit far fetched when you see how ** Chronos ** puts it through the hopper of logic™.
Anyone who has tried to explain anything vaguely technical to a journalist will know this sort of thing is fairly common. No one knows what an amniotic membrane is, but everyone knows what a placenta is o we’ll substitute one word for the other. Near enough. I’ve known the sam sort of substitution to occur between atom/molecule, theory/hypothesis and species/strain. I would guess the same thing has happened here.
As others have pointed out, the fallopian tubes are open at the top end. It’s possible for an ovum to be move into the tube, get fertilised and then ‘fall out’ into the general body cavity. If the zygote had moved down the tube then it wouldn’t have ‘fallen out’ at all.
Not quite true. The liver is a major blood cell production site in foetuses and infants, and although production declines after birth the liver continues ot produce a tiny number blood cells throughout life. Of course blood isn’t just cells, and most of the other stuff, the proteins, sugars etc, is primarily produced in the liver
The embryo itself, and later the membranes and the placenta all release hormones promoting vascularisation. Provided it lodges close to a reasonable sized artery the embryo can organise its own blood supply from there. The liver has a rich enough vessel supply to allow this.
IANAD, but not as far as I know. The resposes are either due to the physical effect of the foetus, or else hormones released by the embryo and associated structures. The uterus reacts to these hormones, but to the best of my knowledge the uterus doesn’t produce any hormones itself.
Given the state of healthcare in many parts of SA, it’s quite possible that any non life threatening abnormalities in the pregnancy would remain undetected.
I can’t see why. The liver itself isn’t being parasitised. All that would change is that some of the blood supply to the liver is being siphoned off. The liver should be able to respond to that either by increasing in size, or else simply increasing its own vascualrisation.
Not trying to be picky Chronos just pointing out that none of the apparent flaws are particularly damning.
Here’s a nice little case about an abdominal pregnancy with the placenta implanting on the liver. It is a very vascular organ, so would be a rich source of blood for the placenta and embryo.
It didn’t end well, of course.
The uterus is designed to to support a fetus. While substitutes may be found, they’re rather like teaching a dog to ride a bicycle. The feat is not done well, but it’s amazing that it can be done at all.
http://www.obgyn.net/pb/pb.asp?page=/pb/articles/hepatic-pregnancy