This is an impasse.
I will continue to be educated, and perhaps find I am in error.
Barring that, we have nothing further to discuss.
Unfair labor conditions.
There’s a philosophical angle to all this, but there’s also a practical one. Philosophically, everything seems to indicate, as said upthread, that the placenta has evolved to function as a temporary organ. If there was some advantage to retain it, at least in the rough and tumble evolutionary environment that has accompanied us up to now, it would have been done. To quote Jeff Goldblum from the original (and IMHO the best) Jurassic Park movie “Life, uh, finds a way.”
That’s not to say, however, that it could not be done otherwise. To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum, “Humans find a way.” If someone really wanted to keep the placenta chugging along (really more like slurping, I suppose) - attached at one end, the other or both - I would (and here I quote my mom) “bet dollars to donuts” they could. To say flat out that it can’t be done, or that the placenta is somehow destined to whither and die in the same way it does now, is, again, philosophically speaking, unscientific. Biology is mechanistic. Mechanisms can be manipulated.
This is where we get into the practical part, using “practical” in the broad sense of now you’d actually have to do something. You’d have to do some research, some experimenting. You’d need money. Lots I assume. That means you’d have to convince other people you’ve got some good ideas, and a plan, and a goal. Lots of furry critters and their un- and newborn offspring would be sacrificed. A lot of grad students would earn PhDs. And, who knows, maybe someone would win a Nobel Prize.
Sounds like, from the linked article way back when, some of that is already going on.
I don’t know where you are on your life’s journey, Nullpersona, but if you are looking for a direction, or for something on which to focus, with your obvious interest and, shall we say, inobvious points of view, you might want to consider getting in on some of that action.
It would seem to be a symbiotic relationship waiting to happen.
Carrying on the plant analogy, why aren’t seed capsules/fruits a permanent entity unto themselves, instead of temporary receptacles for developing embryos?
Don’t eat that fruit, killer!
Chief Pedant IS proof of the placenta’s functionality up to birth.
But to keep it going indefinitely, you need a uterus on one side, which means you need a Mom to support the uterus, and you need a baby on the other, since the placenta is essentially a fetal organ.
What the OP keeps ignoring is that, even if the placenta stays inside the uterus, it begins to die. Apoptosis, programmed cell death, happens in all cells except cancerous ones, but it happens more quickly in placental cells than in most others.
I do understand some of what the OP and others are saying, in terms of how it would be really neat, and possibly lifesaving for premature infants*, if we could transplant the placenta into some other growth medium that would allow it to continue to function. What the OP seems to stubbornly refuse is that s/he’s talking about far more than changing the environment of the placenta. In order for this to work, s/he needs to change the very *nature *of the placenta, the structure and function of the placenta.
Could technology get us there someday? Sure. Anything is possible. But if you do it, you’re going to have a cancerous mass that shares a passing resemblance to a placenta. You won’t have a placenta in its current form.
The placenta cannot continue to function, which was the original question. You may be able to, someday, create an artificial placenta with placental tissue. Different question.
*Happy National Prematurity Day, by the way!
Note that the amniotic sac is inside the chorionic sac, both of which are component of the placenta. What many people seem to visualize as placenta is the exact attachment site, which like WhyNot mentioned is a mesh of fetal and maternal tissues exchanging nutrients and wastes. Without this meshwork the placenta cannot work.
Please also note that this attachment is expelled by the uterus. It is not removed artificially, but nature itself decrees that the attachment must stop and the placenta must be expelled as it is no longer needed.
You could refer to the paragraph in that same link that mentions that the amnion is the inner part, the chorion the outer part, and both are part of the placenta.
Humans are not the only animals to have placentas. All placental mammals have them - mice, moose, monkeys; ermine, elk, elephants. Without exception, they discard (or recycle) the placenta once the offspring are born.
Separation from the uterus. It’s not capable of independent function.
Is not even a question that makes sense.
Biology is a science, not a collection of fuzzy guesses. You can study the function of the placenta in very great detail - either for yourself, or by proxy (e.g. read a biology reference book). You clearly haven’t done this, or you wouldn’t be promoting this fanciful, worthless idea.
I don’t really understand this sentence, but if you’re arguing that you are open to persuasion, I see no evidence of that.
Can you describe the typical mechanics with respect to a routine vaginal delivery? How close am I: Sac breaks, amniotic fluid pours out, baby is delivered, umbilical cord is connected to “attachment site”. Does the “attachment site” aka dark red blob get delivered, and then what… the whole sac is delivered on the blob’s tail, like inside out? I’ve only ever seen footage of the dark red blob being delivered into the dish.
Look closely at the pictures under the Wiki’s entry of placenta. You’ll see a very very thin membrane around the “red blob”. That is the rest of the placenta (placentas, other than the attachment places, are very very thin). But parts may break (thin material). In humans and most animals, the important thing is that the attachment places themselves are removed. Remains are bad for a variety of reasons.
I think this page is better than wikipedia. The Placenta
The fleshy red part that most people think of as “the placenta” is part of a part called the decidua. There are actually three parts even to that part. Everything that comes out of the mother before, during, and after birth, except for the baby, is all, collectively, “the placenta”, if you’re a scientist. The sacs, the umbilical cord, the amniotic liquid, the decidua…all parts of “the placenta”.
Most of us in this thread have been using the common meaning of placenta, referring to the decidua. But **KarlGrenze **is definitely correct.
I deal with non-human placentas, and they look different. The majority of species do not have the discoid shaped deciduas (hoped I used the term correctly). So for me, that red blob is the attachment site, and part of the placenta, and it would look strikingly different if it were a dog, a horse, a pig, or a cow (they would also work and attach differently).
Thanks for reminding that what for me is clear as water is not for others.
Thanks. I celebrated yesterday.
Was this SerenDipitous news item mentioned upthread?:
Surgery Could Give Men Wombs of Their Own Within 5 Years
…last week’s announcement that the Cleveland Clinic is performing uterus transplant surgery on women who were born without a womb or whose uterus is diseased or malfunctioning…
Uterus transplants are still in the research stage for women suffering from uterine factor infertility (UFI). A Swedish team already has successfully transplanted uteri harvested from live donors and achieved five pregnancies and four live births. In the coming months, the Cleveland Clinic team plans to transplant uteri from deceased donors into UFI female patients…
However, biological women have a leg up on biological males when it comes to accepting and nurturing a transplanted uterus. Women already have: vasculature needed to feed the uterus with blood, pelvic ligaments designed to support a uterus, a vagina and cervix, and natural hormones that prepare the uterus for implantation and support the pregnancy…
You mean placenta shaped? ( Hit the dictionaries/etymologies for that one.)
Ignorance fought, even in a ludicrous thread such as this one.
I stand corrected.
Since the chorion is the material for the vasculature to develop, and the amniotic sac provides the “landscaping cloth” I think of them as components of the larger fetal system, and the decidua as the placenta.
For clarity, I will refer to the decidua as such, from this point forward.
Whether or not the amniotic sac can be sustained, it’s contents and construction tell us what the non osmotic portion of the decidua requires. (including umbilicus)
The “maternal side of the placenta” tells us what environment is needed for the osmotic side of the decidua.
Providing similar environments after birth is not impossible.
To restate the original question:
Could the decidua continue to function?
What kind of response are you looking/hoping for?
If you are looking for a “no”, you have found many here.
If you are looking for a “yes”, you have found at least one here: Mine. (I’ve always been a sucker for kooky theoretically possible ideas. I take them in like other people do stray dogs.)
If you are looking for a “no” or a “yes” that is backed up by evidence, as in good experimental evidence from people who have actually tried to make it happen (which is, IMHO, what you really should be looking for if you are really serious about your enquiry) I humbly suggest that you are highly unlikely to find it here.
Got to pubmed. Scrounge around. It will be much more work than tossing out open ended questions and crafty metaphors* in this forum, but, if your willing to do that work, you will get further long in your quest.
*I’ve noticed your metaphors are often plant based. Do you have a background in farming, botany, horticulture, or something like that?
Flat disc? They all look pretty flat when deflated/emptied/after birth.