What Is It? Whose It? Re-Positioning the Fetus in the Context of Research?

Alghrani, Amel; Brazier, Margaret

doi:10.1017/s0008197311000171

Cited by 25 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, he concedes that the subject of CE would, in a sense, be ‘unborn.’ His argument about equal treatment, therefore, works just as easily the other way, supporting my claim that even the gestateling that has been removed from a person’s uterus is different from a newborn. Alghrani and Brazier,8 Sander-Staudt,9 Gelfand and Shook,7 and Steiger10 all argue that the subject of CE should be considered born only at the point of removal from the AW, when emerging from gestation 8. Intuitively, the subject of CE is not born, and thus, if all subjects of the technology should be treated the same, the subject of PE is not born either.…”

Section: Birthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial womb technology and the significance of birth: why gestatelings are not newborns (or fetuses)

Romanis

2019

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent publication, I argued that there is a conceptual difference between artificial womb (AW) technology, capable of facilitating gestation ex utero, and neonatal intensive care, providing incubation to neonates born prematurely. One of the reasons I provided for this distinction was that the subjects of each process are different entities. The subject of the process of gestation ex utero is a unique human entity: a ‘gestateling’, rather than a fetus or a newborn preterm neonate. Nick Colgrove wrote a response to my paper, claiming that my distinction between the subject of an AW and a newborn (in intensive care) was false. He claims that I have not accounted for the proper definition of ‘birth’ and that gestatelings are not a distinct product of human reproduction. Further, Colgrove posits that even if I can successfully distinguish gestatelings from preterms, such a distinction is morally irrelevant because the entities would have the same moral status. In this paper, I address the three challenges raised and defend the claim that gestatelings are unique entities. Moreover, I argue that moral status should not be considered ipso facto determinative in the debate about AWs.

show abstract

Section: Birthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial womb technology and the significance of birth: why gestatelings are not newborns (or fetuses)

Romanis

2019

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Safe clinical use of human ectogenesis will, then, require extensive research on human subjects as well, including embryos and fetuses, which is rife with controversy. To test partial ectogenesis, Alghrani and Brazier have suggested the use of human fetuses that are conceived and gestated (for a limited period of time) in utero, but where the pregnant person is about to go into premature labor, or when the pregnant person’s health and/or that of the fetus requires that delivery is initiated at a stage when conventional neonatal care offers little hope of survival for the baby [ 128 ]. The acceptability of such a research trial is largely underexamined.…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The acceptability of such a research trial is largely underexamined. Central questions that have to be considered here are the validity of the future parents’ consent and whether such a trial can be regarded as therapeutic research at all [ 42 , 128 ]. When, in that case, the parents-to-be consent to such a trial for the sake of the intended benefit of the child, one will have to consider whether this can be said to be in the future child’s interest, taking account of the possibility that viability may come at the cost of severe disability.…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When, in that case, the parents-to-be consent to such a trial for the sake of the intended benefit of the child, one will have to consider whether this can be said to be in the future child’s interest, taking account of the possibility that viability may come at the cost of severe disability. The experimental use of AWT on preterms will not only expose research subjects to unknown short- and long-term risks, but it will also come with concerns about the validity of parental consent in such emotionally challenging and distressing circumstances [ 42 , 128 ]. Alghrani and Brazier mention that it may be hard to obtain such consent, for instance because people may prefer to let the child “die in peace” when they are informed that their child is highly likely to die or be severely disabled in case (s)he survives the procedure [ 128 ].…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The experimental use of AWT on preterms will not only expose research subjects to unknown short- and long-term risks, but it will also come with concerns about the validity of parental consent in such emotionally challenging and distressing circumstances [ 42 , 128 ]. Alghrani and Brazier mention that it may be hard to obtain such consent, for instance because people may prefer to let the child “die in peace” when they are informed that their child is highly likely to die or be severely disabled in case (s)he survives the procedure [ 128 ]. Parents-to-be may also feel pressured to consent, so adequate and understandable information should be offered about the risks and benefits, the alternatives and the purpose of the research [ 42 ].…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The path toward ectogenesis: looking beyond the technical challenges

Segers

2021

BMC Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Breakthroughs in animal studies make the topic of human application of ectogenesis for medical and non-medical purposes more relevant than ever before. While current data do not yet demonstrate a reasonable expectation of clinical benefit soon, several groups are investigating the feasibility of artificial uteri for extracorporeal human gestation. Main text This paper offers the first comprehensive and up to date discussion of the most important pros and cons of human ectogenesis in light of clinical application, along with an examination of crucial ethical (and legal) issues that continued research into, and the clinical translation of, ectogenesis gives rise to. The expected benefits include advancing prenatal medicine, improving neonatal intensive care, and providing a novel pathway towards biological parenthood. This comes with important future challenges. Prior to human application, important questions have to be considered concerning translational research, experimental use of human fetuses and appropriate safety testing. Key questions are identified regarding risks to ectogenesis’ subjects, and the physical impact on the pregnant person when transfer from the uterus to the artificial womb is required. Critical issues concerning proportionality have to be considered, also in terms of equity of access, relative to the envisaged application of ectogenesis. The advent of ectogenesis also comes with crucial issues surrounding abortion, extended fetal viability and moral status of the fetus. Conclusions The development of human ectogenesis will have numerous implications for clinical practice. Prior to human testing, close consideration should be given to whether (and how) ectogenesis can be introduced as a continuation of existing neonatal care, with due attention to both safety risks to the fetus and pressures on pregnant persons to undergo experimental and/or invasive procedures. Equally important is the societal debate about the acceptable applications of ectogenesis and how access to these usages should be prioritized. It should be anticipated that clinical availability of ectogenesis, possibly first as a way to save extremely premature fetuses, may spark demand for non-medical purposes, like avoiding physical and social burdens of pregnancy.

show abstract

Ectogenesis for Space Exploration

Kendal

2021

Encyclopedia of Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ectogenesis (artificial womb technology) could yield many benefits on Earth and provide a safe and sustainable way to populate an off‐world human colony. Gestating foetuses in a protected and controlled environment could help prevent damage caused by radiation exposure, nutritional deficits or the impact of microgravity during pregnancy. This method of reproduction would also reduce the risks and burdens to female settlers and avoid losing members of the early settlement workforce to maternal morbidity and mortality. Realising the potential of ectogenesis to improve sexual equality in reproductive endeavours on Earth and promote the creation of new human settlements in space, will require substantial legal, political and scientific support. It will also require the development of ethical standards for the development, testing and distribution of this new reproductive biotechnology. Key Concepts Human settlements in space will need a safe way to reproduce the next generation of settlers. Ectogenesis (artificial womb technology) could yield many benefits on Earth and in off‐world human colonies. Removing the risks and burdens of pregnancy and childbirth could make a fundamental contribution to achieving sexual equality in human reproduction. Ectogenesis services will need to be distributed equitably to avoiding exacerbating social inequality in reproduction. There are a number of ethical and legal barriers to developing ectogenesis that will need to be addressed before the technology can achieve its potential.

show abstract

What Is It? Whose It? Re-Positioning the Fetus in the Context of Research?

Cited by 25 publications

References 26 publications

Artificial womb technology and the significance of birth: why gestatelings are not newborns (or fetuses)

Artificial womb technology and the significance of birth: why gestatelings are not newborns (or fetuses)

The path toward ectogenesis: looking beyond the technical challenges

Ectogenesis for Space Exploration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About