The Strange Case of the Artificial Placenta
The Harms of Depicting Ethical Challenges as Existential Threats
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55613/jeet.v35i2.171Keywords:
artificial placenta, ectogestation, extremely preterm infants, neonatal intensive care, reproductive technologie, disruptive technologiesAbstract
While most ethical reflection on new technology focuses on their disruptiveness, I will use the example of artificial placentas (APs) to discuss the opposite risk: Overblowing the potential disruptiveness of new health technologies. To do so, I will first explain why AP is regarded as disruptive and why it is not. Second, I will explain the risks of overblowing AP disruptiveness’s. Finally, I will discuss how to better manage AP challenges. AP is a technology meant to improve the survival and quality of life of preterm infants. Many regard the AP as a disruptive technology for three reasons: 1) AP will create a new moral entity, 2) AP is an innovative technology that might disrupt treatment of preterm, and 3) even lead to an artificial womb. Although challenging, AP will not be disruptive and framing it as such can be harmful. For example, it is technically impossible to derive an artificial womb from the AP. Insinuating that one will lead to the other might generate public’s rejection toward AP and halt or delay research, harming preterm infants who could benefit from the AP. Overemphasizing unlikely scenarios is also leading to overlook the more concrete and urgent ethical challenges concerning trial and implementation.
References
(Adkins, V. 2021). Impact of ectogenesis on the medicalisation of pregnancy and childbirth. [Article]. Journal of Medical Ethics, 47(4), 239-243.
(Bird, S. D. 2017). Artificial placenta: Analysis of recent progress. [Review]. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Repro-ductive Biology, 208, 61-70.
(Blencowe, H., Cousens, S., Chou, D., Oestergaard, M., Say, L., Moller, A. B., et al. 2013). Born Too Soon: The global epidemiology of 15 million preterm births Reprod Health (Vol. 10, pp. S2).
(Browne, T. K., Kendal, E., & Sudenkaarne, T. 2023). Feminist Concerns About Artificial Womb Technology. American Journal of Bio-ethics, 23(5), 97-99.
(Bulletti, F. M., Sciorio, R., Palagiano, A., & Bulletti, C. 2023). The artificial uterus: on the way to ectogenesis. Zygote, 31(5), 457-467.
(Cannold, L. 1995). Women, ectogenesis and ethical theory. Journal of applied philosophy, 12(1), 55-64.
(Cavolo, A. 2024). Overcoming (false) dichotomies to address ethical issues of artificial placentas. J Med Ethics, 50(5), 308-309.
(Cavolo, A., de Boer, A., De Proost, L., Verweij, E. J., & Gastmans, C. 2024). Navigating the Ethical Landscape of the Artificial Placenta: A Systematic Review. Prenatal Diagnosis, n/a(n/a).
(Cavolo, A., Gastmans, C., & Crombag, N. 2024). Ethical challenges in conducting maternal-fetal surgery trials. A systematic review. Pediatr Res.
(Cavolo, A., & Pizzolato, D. 2024). Ethical reflections on organizing the first human trial of artificial womb technologies. Prenat Diagn.
(Cavolo, A., & Pizzolato, D. 2024). Expanding the ethical debate on human artificial placenta trials. Research Ethics, 17470161241259127.
(Cohen, I. G. 2017). Artificial Wombs and Abortion Rights. The Hastings Center report, 47(4), inside back cover.
(Colgrove, N. 2019). Subjects of ectogenesis: are 'gestatelings' fetuses, newborns or neither? Journal of medical ethics, 45(11), 723-726.
(Colgrove, N. 2020). Artificial wombs, birth and 'birth': a response to Romanis. Journal of medical ethics, 46(8), 554-556.
(Colgrove, N. 2022). In defence of newborns: a response to Kingma. Journal of Medical Ethics, 48(8), 551-553.
(De Bie, F. R., Davey, M. G., Larson, A. C., Deprest, J., & Flake, A. W. (2021). Artificial placenta and womb technology: Past, current, and future challenges towards clinical translation. [Review]. Prenatal Diagnosis, 41(1), 145-158.
(De Bie, F. R., Flake, A. W., & Feudtner, C. 2023). Life Support System for the Fetonate and the Ethics of Speculation. Jama Pediatrics.
(De Bie, F. R., Kim, S. D., Bose, S. K., Nathanson, P., Partridge, E. A., Flake, A. W., et al. 2023). Ethics Considerations Regarding Artificial Womb Technology for the Fetonate. [Article]. American Journal of Bioethics, 23(5), 67-78.
(De Proost, L., Geurtzen, R., Ismaili M'hamdi, H., Reiss, I., Steegers, E., & Joanne Verweij, E. J. 2021). Prenatal counseling for extreme prematurity at the limit of viability: A scoping review. Patient Educ Couns.
(De Proost, L., & Zuijdwegt, G. 2023). Lost in Gestation: On Fetonates, Perinates, and Gestatelings. Am J Bioeth, 23(5), 108-110.
(Flake, A. W. 2001). Prenatal intervention: Ethical considerations for life-threatening and non-life-threatening anomalies. Seminars in Pediatric Surgery, 10(4), 212-221.
(Flake, A. W. 2022). A supportive physiologic environment for the extreme premature infant: Improving life outside the womb. J Pediatr Surg, 57(2), 167-171.
(Flake, A. W., De Bie, F. R., Munson, D. A., & Feudtner, C. 2023). The artificial placenta and EXTEND technologies: one of these things is not like the other. J Perinatol, 43(11), 1343-1348.
(Guillén, Ú., Weiss, E. M., Munson, D., Maton, P., Jefferies, A., Norman, M., et al. 2015). Guidelines for the Management of Extremely Premature Deliveries: A Systematic Review. Pediatrics, 136(2), 343-350.
(Hendriks, M. J., Klein, S. D., Bucher, H. U., Baumann-Holzle, R., Streuli, J. C., & Fauchere, J. C. 2017). Attitudes towards decisions about extremely premature infants differed between Swiss linguistic regions in population-based study. Acta Paediatr, 106(3), 423-429.
(Holmes, J., & Hosford, L. 2023). Artificial Womb Technology, Catholic Health Care, and Social Justice. American Journal of Bioethics, 23(5), 123-125.
(Hooton, V., & Romanis, E. C. 2022). Artificial womb technology, pregnancy, and EU employment rights. [Article]. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 9(1), 33.
(Hopster, J. 2021). What are socially disruptive technologies? Technology in Society, 67, 101750.
(Horn, C. 2020a). Ectogenesis is for Feminists. Reclaiming Artificial Wombs from Antiabortion Discourse Catalyst, 6(1).
(Horn, C. 2020b). Gender, gestation and ectogenesis: self-determination for pregnant people ahead of artificial wombs. Journal of Medi-cal Ethics, 46(11), 787-788.
(Horn, C. 2022). Ectogenesis, inequality, and coercion: a reproductive justice-informed analysis of the impact of artificial wombs. [Arti-cle]. BioSocieties.
(Humber, J. M. 1977). Abortion, Fetal Research, and the Law. Social Theory and Practice, 4(2).
(Kaczor, C. 2005). Could artificial wombs end the abortion debate? Natl Cathol Bioeth Q, 5(2), 283-301.
(Kaczor, C. 2011). Could Artificial Wombs End the Abortion Debate? Loyola Marymount Univ, Los Angeles, CA 90045 USA. Kaczor, C (corresponding author), Loyola Marymount Univ, Los Angeles, CA 90045 USA. Abingdon: Routledge.
(Kendal, E. 2022). Form, Function, Perception, and Reception: Visual Bioethics and the Artificial Womb. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 95(3), 371-377.
(Kimberly, L. L., & Quinn, G. P. 2023). Toward a Broader Conception of Equity in Artificial Womb Technology. American Journal of Bioethics, 23(5), 114-116.
(Kingma, E. 2021). In defence of gestatelings: response to Colgrove. Journal of Medical Ethics, 47(5), 355-356.
(Kingma, E., & Finn, S. 2020). Neonatal incubator or artificial womb? Distinguishing ectogestation and ectogenesis using the metaphys-ics of pregnancy. Bioethics, 34(4), 354-363.
(Lantos, J. D. 2018). Ethical Problems in Decision Making in the Neonatal ICU. New England Journal of Medicine, 379(19), 1851-1860.
(Lee, M. 2009). EU Regulation of GMOs: Law and Decision Making for a New Technology: Oxford University Press.
(Lyerly, A. D., Gates, E. A., Cefalo, R. C., & Sugarman, J. 2001). Toward the ethical evaluation and use of maternal-fetal surgery. Obstet-rics and Gynecology, 98(4), 689-697.
(Mercurio, M. R. 2018). The EXTEND system for extrauterine support of extremely premature neonates: opportunity and caution. [Note]. Pediatric Research, 84(6), 795-796.
(Myrhaug, H. T., Brurberg, K. G., Hov, L., & Markestad, T. 2019). Survival and Impairment of Extremely Premature Infants: A Me-ta-analysis. Pediatrics, 143(2).
(Nelson, A. 2022). Should Delivery by Partial Ectogenesis Be Available on Request of the Pregnant Person? [Article]. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 15(1), 1-26.
(Overall, C. 1993). Human Reproduction: A Feminist Analysis. Boston: Allen and Un-win. OverallEthics and Human Reproduction: A Feminist Analysis1987.
(Partridge, E. A., Davey, M. G., Hornick, M. A., McGovern, P. E., Mejaddam, A. Y., Vrecenak, J. D., et al. 2017). An extra-uterine system to physiologically support the extreme premature lamb. [Article]. Nature Communications, 8, 15.
(Reitsma, A. M., & Moreno, J. D. 2003). Maternal-fetal research and human research protections policy. Clinics in Perinatology, 30(1), 141-153.
(Rodger, D., Colgrove, N., & Blackshaw, B. P. 2021). Gestaticide: killing the subject of the artificial womb. Journal of Medical Ethics, 47(12), 6.
(Roesner, N. 2023). Beyond a Medicalized View of Reproduction: Recentering Pregnant People in the Ethics of Ectogenesis. American Journal of Bioethics, 23(5), 102-104.
(Romanis, E. C. 2018). Artificial womb technology and the frontiers of human reproduction: conceptual differences and potential impli-cations. Journal of Medical Ethics, 44(11), 751-755.
(Romanis, E. C. 2019). Artificial womb technology and the significance of birth: Why gestatelings are not newborns (or fetuses). Journal of Medical Ethics, 45(11), 727-729.
(Romanis, E. C. 2020a). Artificial womb technology and clinical translation: Innovative treatment or medical research? Bioethics, 34(4), 392-402.
(Romanis, E. C. 2020b). Challenging the 'Born Alive' Threshold: Fetal Surgery, Artificial Wombs, and the English Approach to Legal Personhood. Med Law Rev, 28(1), 93-123.
(Romanis, E. C. 2020c). Is 'viability' viable? Abortion, conceptual confusion and the law in England and Wales and the United States. J Law Biosci, 7(1), lsaa059.
(Romanis, E. C. 2023). The Ethical and Legal Status of 'Fetonates' Or 'Gestatelings'. Am J Bioeth, 23(5), 90-92.
(Romanis, E. C., & Adkins, V. 2023). Artificial placentas, pregnancy loss and loss-sensitive care. J Med Ethics.
(Romanis, E. C., & Horn, C. 2020). Artificial Wombs and the Ectogenesis Conversation: A Misplaced Focus? Technology, Abortion, and Reproductive Freedom. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 13(2), 174-194.
(Segers, S. 2021). The path toward ectogenesis: looking beyond the technical challenges. BMC Medical Ethics, 22(1).
(Simkulet, W. 2020). Abortion and Ectogenesis: Moral Compromise. [Article]. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(2), 93-98.
(Stratman, C. 2023). Ectogestation and the Good Samaritan Argument. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 10(1).
(Stratman, C. M. 2021). Ectogestation and the Problem of Abortion. Philosophy and Technology, 34(4), 683-700.
(Stratman, C. M. 2021). Replies to Kaczor and Rodger. Philosophy & Technology, 34(4), 1941-1944.
(Usuda, H., Fee, E. L., Takahashi, T., Takahashi, Y., Carter, S., Newnham, J. P., et al. 2021). The artificial placenta: sci-fi or reality? [Arti-cle]. Revista Medica Clinica Las Condes, 32(6), 699-706.
(Usuda, H., Watanabe, S., Miura, Y., Saito, M., Musk, G. C., Rittenschober-Böhm, J., et al. 2017). Successful maintenance of key physio-logical parameters in preterm lambs treated with ex vivo uterine environment therapy for a period of 1 week. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 217(4), 457.e451-457.e413.
(Usuda, H., Watanabe, S., Saito, M., Sato, S., Musk, G. C., Fee, M. E., et al. 2019). Successful use of an artificial placenta to support ex-tremely preterm ovine fetuses at the border of viability. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 221(1), 69.e61-69.e17.
(Verweij, E. J., De Proost, L., van Laar, J. O. E. H., Frank, L., Obermann-Borstn, S. A., Vermeulen, M. J., et al. 2021). Ethical Development of Artificial Amniotic Sac and Placenta Technology: A Roadmap. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 9.
(World Health Organization. 2023). Preterm Birth Fact Sheet. Retrieved 18 April 2024 at https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/preterm-birth
(World Medical Association. 2013) Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Re-trieved 27 November, 2024 at: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki/
(Wozniak, P. S., & Fernandes, A. K. 2021). Conventional revolution: the ethical implications of the natural progress of neonatal inten-sive care to artificial wombs. Journal of Medical Ethics, 47(12), 5.
(Yaakob, H. 2022). Setting The Boundaries of Individual Reproductive Autonomy: The Case of Artificial Womb. UUM Journal of Legal Studies, 13(2), 1-24.
(Zimmer, K. 2021). Artificial wombs are science fiction. But artificial placentas are on the horizon. [Article]. Ieee Spectrum, 58(4), 22-29.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Alice Cavolo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) after publication, while providing bibliographic details that credit JEET (See The Effect of Open Access).
How to Cite
