Ectogestation ethics: The implications of artificially extending gestation for viability, newborn resuscitation and abortion

[Some present and future ethical dilemmas surrounding advancements in in vitro fertilization.]

The growing field of assisted human reproduction has achieved unimaginable milestones. Its continuous development and the innovations it generates at times pose both ethical and legal dilemmas. This essay aims to elucidate the progressive changes occurring in the realm of the origin of life due to the development of new options and strategies in assisted human reproduction. First, it constructs an interdisciplinary reflection on human nature and the changes society faces from the perspectives of science, ethics, and law, particularly from the perspective of Spain. Second, it provides a brief overview of current or future biomedical techniques in the field of human reproduction. It concludes with a discussion of the need to reflect on the rapid advancement of science in assisted human reproduction.

Clinical challenges to the concept of ectogestation

Since the publication of the successful animal trials of the Biobag, a prototypical extrauterine support for extremely premature neonates, numerous ethicists have debated the potential implications of such a device. Some have argued that the Biobag represents a natural evolution of traditional newborn intensive care, while others believe that the Biobag would create a new class of being for the patients housed within. Kingma and Finn argued in Bioethics for making a categorical distinction between fetuses, newborns and 'gestatelings' in a Biobag on the basis of a conceptual distinction between ectogenesis versus ectogestation. Applying their arguments to the clinical realities of newborn intensive care, however, demonstrates the inapplicability of their ideas to the practice of medicine. Here, I present three clinical examples of the difficulty and confusion their argument would create for clinicians and offer a possible remedy: namely, discarding the term 'artificial womb' in favour of 'Biobag'.

The Place of Philosophy in Bioethics Today

In some views, philosophy's glory days in bioethics are over. While philosophers were especially important in the early days of the field, so the argument goes, the majority of the work in bioethics today involves the "simple" application of existing philosophical principles or concepts, as well as empirical work in bioethics. Here, we address this view head on and ask: What is the role of philosophy in bioethics today? This paper has three specific aims: (1) to respond to skeptics and make the case that philosophy and philosophers still have a very important and meaningful role to play in contemporary bioethics, (2) to discuss some of the current challenges to the meaningful integration of philosophy and bioethics, and (3) to make suggestions for what needs to happen in order for the two fields to stay richly connected. We outline how bioethics center directors, funders, and philosopher bioethicists can help.

Ethical, Translational, and Legal Issues Surrounding the Novel Adoption of Ectogestative Technologies

Increasing numbers of research teams are investigating the feasibility of developing artificial amnion and placenta technology (AAPT), commonly referred to as "artificial womb technology". This technology, aimed at supporting ex vivo gestation, has not yet been tested in humans, but it has been stated that we are closer to clinical application than ever before as breakthroughs in animal studies demonstrate good proof of principle. With these proof-of-concept models, further dissemination of AAPT as a research modality is expected. In this review article, we consider the ethical implications of the most imminent anticipated applications for AAPT. We focus specifically on the specific ethical complications regarding the improvements this technology may offer to conventional neonatal intensive care, its potential utility in facilitating prenatal interventions, and some of the broader socio-legal implications such as the debates about abortion access and reproductive and gestational choices. We discuss translational and societal questions when it comes to designing and developing this technology, like commitments to value-sensitive design, along with an examination of the legal and moral status of the entity gestating ex utero, which will be relevant for how it ought to be treated in the context of these various applications. From these perspectives, this review identifies the ethical questions that we believe to be most pressing in the development and potential introduction of AAPT, with due attention to their manifestation as translational and legal issues.

Viability and thresholds for treatment of extremely preterm infants: survey of UK neonatal professionals

BACKGROUND

Decisions about treatments for extremely preterm infants (EPIs) born in the 'grey zone' of viability can be ethically complex. This 2020 survey aimed to determine views of UK neonatal staff about thresholds for treatment of EPIs given a recently revised national Framework for Practice from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine.

METHODS

The online survey requested participants indicate the lowest gestation at which they would be willing to offer active treatment and the highest gestation at which they would withhold active treatment of an EPI at parental request (their lower and upper thresholds). Relative risks were used to compare respondents' views based on profession and neonatal unit designation. Further questions explored respondents' conceptual understanding of viability.

RESULTS

336 respondents included 167 consultants, 127 registrars/fellows and 42 advanced neonatal nurse practitioners (ANNPs). Respondents reported a median grey zone for neonatal resuscitation between 22⁺¹ and 24⁺⁰ weeks' gestation. Registrars/fellows were more likely to select a lower threshold at 22⁺⁰ weeks compared with consultants (Relative Risk (RR)=1.37 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.74)) and ANNPs (RR=2.68 (95% CI 1.42 to 5.06)). Those working in neonatal intensive care units compared with other units were also more likely to offer active treatment at 22⁺⁰ weeks (RR=1.86 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.94)). Most participants understood a fetus/newborn to be 'viable' if it was possible to survive, regardless of disability, with medical interventions accessible to the treating team.

CONCLUSION

Compared with previous studies, we found a shift in the reported lower threshold for resuscitation in the UK, with greater acceptance of active treatment for infants <23 weeks' gestation.

The path toward ectogenesis: looking beyond the technical challenges

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.

Ectogestation ethics: The implications of artificially extending gestation for viability, newborn resuscitation and abortion

Recent animal research suggests that it may soon be possible to support the human fetus in an artificial uterine environment for part of a pregnancy. A technique of extending gestation in this way ("ectogestation") could be offered to parents of extremely premature infants (EPIs) to improve outcomes for their child. The use of artificial uteruses for ectogestation could generate ethical questions because of the technology's potential impact on the point of "viability"-loosely defined as the stage of pregnancy beyond which the fetus may survive external to the womb. Several medical decisions during the perinatal period are based on the gestation at which infants are considered viable, for example decisions about newborn resuscitation and abortion, and ectogestation has the potential to impact on these. Despite these possible implications, there is little existing evidence or analysis of how this technology would affect medical practice. In this paper, we combine empirical data with ethical analysis. We report a survey of 91 practicing Australian obstetricians and neonatologists; we aimed to assess their conceptual understanding of "viability," and what ethical consequences they envisage arising from improved survival of EPIs. We also assess what the ethical implications of extending gestation should be for newborn and obstetric care. We analyze the concept of viability and argue that while ectogestation might have implications for the permissibility of neonatal life-prolonging treatment at extremely early gestation, it should not necessarily have implications for abortion policy. We compare our ethical findings with the results of the survey.