Thinking Inside the Bag: Patient Selection, Framing the Ethical Discourse, and the Importance of Terminology in Artificial Womb Technology

Navigating the Ethical Landscape of the Artificial Placenta: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aims at presenting the ethical debate on the artificial placenta (AP) by identifying, distinguishing, and organizing the different ethical arguments described in the literature. Articles were selected based on predefined inclusion criteria: discussing ethical arguments, on AP, written in English. QUAGOL methodology was used for analysis. Forty-five articles were included. We identified three themes. First, foundational-ethical issues. There is disagreement on whether the AP subject should be considered an infant or a new moral entity. While physiologically it stays in the fetus, it sits outside the womb. Second, reproductive ethics issues. Few authors believed that the AP would increase reproductive choices. The majority warned that the AP could limit reproductive choices by creating pressure to use it in healthy pregnancies or as an alternative to abortion. Third, research ethics issues. Publications mostly focused on the selection of the in-human trial participants. We concluded that AP ethical literature focuses mostly on the potential use of AP as an alternative to abortion or healthy pregnancies rather than on its intended use as a treatment after extremely premature birth. Therefore, we conclude that the current ethical literature on AP is imbalanced: it leans more toward science fiction than actual clinical and technological reality.

Ethical reflections on organizing the first human trial of artificial womb technologies

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how to protect participants in the artificial womb technology (AWT) human trials.

METHOD

We compared randomized controlled trials and single arm trials to understand which trial design best balances the interests of science and participants. We also compared AWT trials with comparable settings to understand how to protect participants.

RESULTS

Randomized trials might fail in reaching a sizeable sample, which could pointlessly expose participants to risks. Furthermore, parents who choose to participate in the trial might expect to receive AWT. Failed expectations might distress parents and hinder the therapeutic relationship. The trial is divided into two steps. First, delivery into AWT involves two participants: the mother and the fetus. As AWT requires a C-section, the procedure cannot be carried out without the mother's consent regardless of fetal benefit. Treatment in AWT, involves one participant: the infant. As for any other invasive intervention, the AWT trial should be suspended if harmful.

CONCLUSIONS

A single arm trial could prevent some of the methodological and ethical challenges of the randomized trials. Moreover, better decisional tools should be developed to help parents decide whether to participate in the AWT trial. For example, using visual aids or showing the AWT.