Search

Hendricks set out to construct an antiabortion version of Jeff McMahan's Embryo Rescue case in which you have two choices-(1) save a woman from an unwilling pregnancy or (2) save a fetus from being killed. In his Pregnancy Rescue case, he contends we ought to choose (2), which he thinks shows abortion is immoral. However, I argue the Pregnancy Rescue case is a false dilemma because you can save both. I propose an alternative, more elegant dilemma, the Ectogenesis Rescue case with the same choices (1) and (2). Hendricks also believes his case can serve as an antiabortion version of Thomson's Violinist case, showing that abortion is immoral even if a fetus is not a person. However, while Thomson's Violinist substitutes the fetus with a person, Hendricks fails to substitute the fetus with something that is not a person. I propose an alternative, the Snakebite Rescue case, which does this., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Advances in assisted reproductive technologies can give rise to several ethical challenges. One of these challenges occurs when the reproductive desires of two individuals become incompatible and conflict. To address such conflicts, it is important to unbundle different aspects of (non)parenthood and to recognize the corresponding reproductive rights. This article starts on the premise that the six reproductive rights-the right (not) to be a gestational, genetic, and social parent-are negative rights that do not entail a right to assistance. Since terminating or continuing a pregnancy is a form of assistance, the right (not) to be a gestational parent should enjoy primacy in conflicts. However, while refusing assistance may hinder the reproductive project of another person, "prior assistance" does not entitle someone to violate a reproductive right. Therefore, our analysis provides reasons to argue that someone has a right to unilaterally use cryopreserved embryos or continue the development of an entity in an extracorporeal gestative environment (i.e., ectogestation). Although this could lead to a violation of the right not to be a genetic parent, it does not necessarily entail a violation of the right not to be a social parent., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Artificial womb technology for extracorporeal gestation of human offspring (ectogenesis or ectogestation) has profound ethical, sociological and religious implications for Muslim communities. In this article we examine the usage of the technology through the lens of Islamic ethico-legal frameworks specifically the legal maxims ( al-Qawaid al-Fiqhiyyah ) and higher objectives of Islamic law ( Maqaṣid al-Shariah ). Our analysis suggests that its application may be contingently permissible ( halal ) in situations of dire need such as sustaining life and development of extremely premature newborns, for advancing fetal medicine and avoiding maternal co-morbidities during fetal treatment, and for enabling motherhood for women without functional wombs, or who face grave medical risks in pregnancy. However, its application may be proscribed ( haram ) for enabling healthy women to avoid pregnancy and childbirth, or to achieve parenthood equity. Specification of these views to particular policy, legal contexts and Fatwa will require multidisciplinary Shariah -based bioethical deliberations between jurists, policymakers, and scientists.

The article aims to elaborate the progress made in partial ectogenesis research on sheep as well as human embryos. Since the ban on embryos experimentation after the 14-day window is a major roadblock in terms of partial ectogenesis research, the authors have weighed the possibility that such a ban could be reconsidered. In favor of easing such a restriction, it may be argued that: (a) unlike the Catholic approach, prevalent ethics precepts hold that the embryo's interest ought to be balanced against the interests of the other parties involved; (b) an extension of the 14-day deadline would no longer make ethically untenable practices acceptable; hence, the "slippery slope" argument, although generally worthy, would not conclusively apply to partial ectogenesis; (c) in mainstream embryo research efforts, there is a conflict between the lives of embryos and the health of individuals already born; as for partial ectogenesis, however, such a conflict would be between the lives of embryos and the lives of fetuses which would not survive otherwise. Still, in light of the embryo's status as a human being, the authors conclude that such research practices should only be allowed on supernumerary embryos.

The potential benefits of an alternative to physical gestation are numerous. These include providing reproductive options for prospective parents who are unable to establish or maintain a physiological pregnancy, and saving the lives of some infants born prematurely. Ectogenesis could also promote sexual equality in reproduction, and represents a necessary option for women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy who are morally opposed to abortion. Despite these broad, and in some cases unique benefits, one major ethical concern is the potential impact of this emerging technology on abortion rights. This article will argue that ectogenesis poses a challenge to many common arguments in favour of a pregnant woman's right to choose, but only insomuch as it highlights that their underlying justifications for abortion are based on flawed conceptions of what the foetus and pregnancy actually are. By interrogating the various interests and relationships involved in a pregnancy, this article will demonstrate that the emergence of artificial gestation need not impact existing abortion rights or legislation, nor definitions of independent viability or moral status.

It is frequently claimed that artificial wombs (AWs) could alleviate the burdens placed exclusively on women in reproduction. In this article, I demonstrate how AWs used for the partial gestation of preterm neonates could introduce new choices for women by changing perceptions of tolerable risks in gestation. In light of advancing medical technology, it is necessary to consider whether the current legal framework in England and Wales would support increased choice for women about alternative forms of gestation. I examine the ill-defined offence of 'unlawfully procuring miscarriage' in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and demonstrate that different conclusions about the legal significance of ending a pregnancy are evident, depending on the analytical lens adopted in interpreting ambiguities. Furthermore, I demonstrate that the defences available to pregnancy termination under the Abortion Act 1967 are too narrow to support choices about alternative forms of gestation, even if they become physically and medically possible. Therefore, we should decriminalise termination of pregnancy, or, if it is assumed that gestation is the business of the criminal law, specific reforms to the legal framework are necessary. The offence of unlawfully procuring miscarriage is too uncertain and broad, and the defences available are too restrictive., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Breastfeeding is analogous to pregnancy as an experience, in its exclusiveness to women, and in its cost and the effects it has on equitable share of labor. Therefore, the history of formula feeding provides useful insights into the future of full ectogenesis, which could evolve into a more severe version of what formula feeding is today: simplify life for some women and provide couples with a more equitable share of work at the cost of stigma, guilt and a daily diet of studies purporting to show the benefits of natural pregnancy. Making pregnancy an optional route to motherhood would make women's life trajectory more similar to men's and thus put pressure on women to compete with men on the ground shaped by men's preferences. Despite being a treasured experience of many women today, bearing children could become the luxury of the few, the province of the very poor and a choice working women will pay a high price for as women who choose pregnancy become stigmatized as self-indulgent or unprofessional and penalized for it in the workplace. At the same time, scarce societal resources that could be used to support pregnant women and working mothers would instead be directed toward proving to women or even forcing them to gestate children "the right way." While not necessarily threatening on its own, when added to formula feeding, IVF, stem-cell produced ova and sex robots, full ectogenesis could diminish men's stake in women's wellbeing and even existence., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Full ectogenesis as the complete externalization of human reproduction by bypassing the bodily processes of gestation and childbirth can be considered the culmination of genetic and reproductive technologies. Despite its still being a hypothetical scenario, it has been discussed for decades as the ultimate means to liberate women from their reproductive tasks in society and hence finally end fundamental gender injustices generally. In the debate about the application of artificial wombs to achieve gender equality, one aspect is barely mentioned but is of crucial relevance from a medical-ethical perspective: whether and how could full ectogenesis be justified as a proper use of medicine? After characterizing the technology as a special form of human enhancement and as an extension of medical practice that goes beyond the traditional field of medicine, this paper critically assesses the theoretical possibilities of legitimizing this extension. We identify two ways of justification: either one argues that ectogenesis fulfils a proper goal of medicine (a justification we call pathologization), or one argues that the application of ectogenesis achieves a non-medical goal (which we call medicalization). Because it is important from a medical-ethical point of view to avoid an inappropriate instrumentalization or misuse of medicine and thus an undue medicalization of non-medical problems, a set of necessary conditions has to be met. It is doubtful whether full ectogenesis for non-medical purposes could fulfil these conditions. Rather, its comprehensive usage could be seen as a revolutionary modification of what it means to be human., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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., (© 2019 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In 2017 and 2019, two research teams claimed 'proof of principle' for artificial womb technology (AWT). AWT has long been a subject of speculation in bioethical literature, with broad consensus that it is a welcome development. Despite this, little attention is afforded to more immediate ethical problems in the development of AWT, particularly as an alternative to neonatal intensive care. To start this conversation, I consider whether experimental AWT is innovative treatment or medical research. The research-treatment distinction, pervasive in regulation worldwide, is intended to isolate research activities and subject them to a greater degree of oversight. I argue that there is a tendency in the literature to conceptualize AWT for partial ectogenesis as innovative treatment. However, there are sufficiently serious ethical concerns with experimental AWT that mean that it must not be first used on humans on the basis that it is a 'beneficial treatment'. First, I outline the prospects for translation of AWT animal studies into treatment for human preterms. Second, I challenge the conceptualizations of experimental AWT as innovative treatment. It must be considered medical research to reflect the investigatory nature of the process and guarantee sufficient protections for subjects. Identifying that AWT is research is crucial in formulating further ethico-legal questions regarding the experimental use of AWT. Third, I demonstrate that clinical trials will be a necessary part of the clinical translation of AWT because of requirements laid out by regulators. I consider the justification for clinical trials and highlight some of the crucial ethical questions about the conditions under which they should proceed., (© 2019 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In this paper, we aim to stimulate ethical debate about the morally relevant connection between ectogenesis and the foetus as a potential beneficiary of treatment. Ectogenesis could facilitate foetal interventions by treating the foetus independently of the pregnant woman and provide easier access to the foetus if interventions are required. The moral relevance hereof derives from the observation that, together with other developments in genetic technology and prenatal treatment, this may catalyse the allocation of a patient status to the foetus. The topic of foetal medicine is of growing interest to clinicians, and it also deserves due attention from an ethical perspective. To the extent that these developments contribute to the allocation of a patient status to the foetus (and to its respective interests for medical treatment), normative questions arise about how moral responsibilities towards foetal interests should be balanced against the interests of the pregnant woman. We conclude that, even if ectogenesis could facilitate foetal therapy, it is important to remain sensitive to the fact that it would not circumvent the key ethical concerns that come with in utero foetal treatment and that it may even exacerbate potential conflicts between directive treatment recommendations and the pregnant woman's autonomous decision to the contrary., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

A 2017 Nature report was widely touted as hailing the arrival of the artificial womb. But the scientists involved claim their technology is merely an improvement in neonatal care. This raises an under-considered question: what differentiates neonatal incubation from artificial womb technology? Considering the nature of gestation-or metaphysics of pregnancy-(a) identifies more profound differences between fetuses and neonates/babies than their location (in or outside the maternal body) alone: fetuses and neonates have different physiological and physical characteristics; (b) characterizes birth as a physiological, mereological and topological transformation as well as a (morally relevant) change of location; and (c) delivers a clear distinction between neonatal incubation and ectogestation: the former supports neonatal physiology; the latter preserves fetal physiology. This allows a detailed conceptual classification of ectogenetive and ectogestative technologies according to which the 2017 system is not just improved neonatal incubation, but genuine ectogestation. But it is not an artificial womb, which is a term that is better put to rest. The analysis reveals that any ethical discussion involving ectogestation must always involve considerations of possible risks to the mother as well as her autonomy and rights. It also adds a third and potentially important dimension to debates in reproductive ethics: the physiological transition from fetus/gestateling to baby/neonate., (© 2020 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

As the technology for ectogenesis continues to advance, the ethical implications of such developments should be thoroughly and proactively explored. The possibility of full ectogenesis remains hypothetical at present, and myriad concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of the technology must be evaluated and addressed, while pressing moral considerations should be fully deliberated. However, it is conceivable that the technology may become sufficiently well established in the future and that eventually full ectogenesis might be deemed ethically acceptable as a reproductive alternative to gestation within a human womb under certain circumstances. If the safety and efficacy of full ectogenesis are established, if ethical dilemmas are sufficiently well addressed, and if the technology is offered as a reproductive option to cisgender heterosexual individuals or couples desiring to become parents, there is a moral obligation grounded in social justice to ensure that full ectogenesis be made available to individuals or couples identifying as members of sexual- or gender-minority groups who likewise seek to pursue parenthood. We examine the history of access to current family-building options, including assisted reproductive technology, surrogacy and adoption, for these populations and conclude that in the absence of robust empirical evidence suggesting an increased risk of harm to children of individuals and couples who identify as members of sexual- or gender-minority groups, equitable access to ectogenesis as a pathway to parenthood for sexual and gender minorities must be assured as a matter of reproductive justice., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The contemporary philosophical literature on abortion primarily revolves around three seemingly intractable debates, concerning the (1) moral status of the fetus, (2) scope of women's rights and (3) moral relevance of the killing/letting die distinction. The possibility of ectogenesis-technology that would allow a fetus to develop outside of a gestational mother's womb-presents a unique opportunity for moral compromise. Here, I argue those opposed to abortion have a prima facie moral obligation to pursue ectogenesis technology and provide ectogenesis for disconnected fetuses as part of a moral compromise., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The benefits of full ectogenesis, that is, the gestation of human fetuses outside the maternal womb, for women ground many contemporary authors' arguments on the ethical desirability of this practice. In this paper, I present and assess two sets of arguments advanced in favour of ectogenesis: arguments stressing ectogenesis' equality-promoting potential and arguments stressing its freedom-promoting potential. I argue that although successfully grounding a positive case for ectogenesis, these arguments have limitations in terms of their reach and scope. Concerning their limited reach, I contend that ectogenesis will likely benefit a small subset of women and, arguably, not the group who most need to achieve equality and freedom. Concerning their limited scope, I contend that these defences do not pay sufficient attention to the context in which ectogenesis would be developed and that, as a result, they risk leaving the status quo unchanged. After providing examples of these limitations, I move to my proposal concerning the role of ectogenesis in promoting women's equality and freedom. This proposal builds on Silvia Federici's, Mariarosa Dalla Costa's and Selma James' readings of the international feminist campaign 'Wages for Housework'. It maintains that the political perspective and provocation that ectogenesis can advance should be considered and defended., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Subjects of ectogenesis-human beings that are developing in artificial wombs (AWs)-share the same moral status as newborns. To demonstrate this, I defend two claims. First, subjects of partial ectogenesis-those that develop in utero for a time before being transferred to AWs-are newborns (in the full sense of the word). Second, subjects of complete ectogenesis-those who develop in AWs entirely-share the same moral status as newborns. To defend the first claim, I rely on Elizabeth Chloe Romanis's distinctions between fetuses, newborns and subjects of ectogenesis. For Romanis, the subject of partial ectogenesis 'is neither a fetus nor a baby' but is, instead, a 'new product of human reproduction'. In this essay, I begin by, expanding upon Romanis's argument that subjects of partial ectogenesis are not fetuses while arguing that those subjects are newborns. Next, I show that the distinction that Romanis draws between subjects of partial ectogenesis and newborns needs to be revised. The former is a kind of the latter. This leads us to an argument that shows why different moral statuses cannot be justifiably assigned to subjects of partial ectogenesis and subjects of complete ectogenesis, respectively. As subjects of partial ectogenesis share the same moral status as newborns, it follows that subjects of complete ectogenesis share the same moral status as newborns as well. Iconclude by considering implications that this essay may have for the research and development of AW technology and conceptual links between a subject's moral status and birth., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Ectogenesis, or the use of an artificial womb to allow a foetus to develop, will likely become a reality within a few decades, and could significantly affect the abortion debate. We first examine the implications for Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist analogy, which argues for a woman's right to withdraw life support from the foetus and so terminate her pregnancy, even if the foetus is granted full moral status. We show that on Thomson's reasoning, there is no right to the death of the foetus, and abortion is not permissible if ectogenesis is available, provided it is safe and inexpensive. This raises the question of whether there are persuasive reasons for the right to the death of the foetus that could be exercised in the context of ectogenesis. Eric Mathison and Jeremy Davis have examined several arguments for this right, doubting that it exists, while Joona Räsänen has recently criticized their reasoning. We respond to Räsänen's analysis, concluding that his arguments are unsuccessful, and that there is no right to the death of the foetus in these circumstances., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This Bioethics and Biopolitics: Presents and Futures of Reproduction symposium draws together a series of articles that were each submitted independently by their authors to the JBI and which explore the biopower axis in the externalization of reproduction in four contexts: artificial gestation (ectogenesis), PGD for sex selection, women's (reproductive) rights, and testicular cryopreservation (TCCP). While one contribution explores a "future" of reproduction, the other three explore a "present," or better, explore different "presents." What may counts as "present," and what may count as "future," has dramatically different connotations depending on the geographical declination of the tense.

This paper aims to address how artificial gestation might affect equality of opportunity for the unborn and any resultant generation of "ectogenetic" babies. It will first explore the current legal obstacles preventing the development of ectogenesis, before looking at the benefits of allowing this technology to control fetal growth and development. This will open up a discussion of the treatment/enhancement divide regarding the use of reproductive technologies, a topic featured in various bioethical debates on the subject. Using current maternity practices in Western society as a comparator, this paper will conclude that neither naturally nor artificially gestated fetuses have interests that can conflict with those of potential parents who might want to use this technology to control fetal development. Such control may include selective implantation of embryos of a desired gender, deliberate choice of genetic traits, or maintenance of an ideal incubation environment to avoid fetal damage. Objections on the basis of disability as well as concerns regarding eugenics will be addressed. The paper will conclude that none of these objections are compelling grounds to prevent the development and use of ectogenesis technologies for the purpose of achieving specific reproductive goals, particularly when compared to current practices in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and selective abortion on the grounds of undesired traits. As such, when deciding whether to support ectogenesis research, the enduring interests of parents must be the primary consideration, with societal concerns regarding potential misuse the only valid secondary consideration.

Infertility is a condition affecting an increasing number of individuals all over the world. In recent years, this phenomenon has spread across both western countries and developing countries, thus developing the features of a pandemic. For this reason, the World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged that infertility should be considered a disease to all intents and purposes, as it diminishes the health and wellbeing of the individuals who suffers from it. At present, the most effective means to contain the spread of infertility are essentially prevention and Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART). With reference to the latter, although most of these techniques are routinely used in the majority of countries, they are still subject to medical, ethical and political debates. There are huge variations noted when the regulatory legislation adopted by different countries to govern infertility treatment in various countries all over the world are reviewed. In fact, it has to be recognized that ART legislation depends on a variety of factors, such as social structure, political choices, ethical issues and religious beliefs. This makes it apparently impossible to create a standard regulation for different countries, especially in case of controversial issues like gamete and embryo donation, embryo cryopreservation or surrogacy., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The concept of reproduction without uterus, or ectogenesis, has long been considered a myth. Nowadays, however, the in vitro conception (IVF) and embryo culture before implantation are largely used in humans with more than 50,000 IVF and ICSI procedures yearly in France, but also in ruminants where about 400,000 bovine embryos are produced in vitro worldwide each year. In order to proceed with gestation, a 3D structure enabling implantation is needed. Ex-vivo implantation of human embryos was obtained both in a perfused ex-vivo uterus and in a 3 dimensional culture of endometrial cells, but these experiments were stopped because of ethical concerns. The implantation of a mouse embryo in a similar 3D structure has been reported but did not lead to the production of a live pup. Another interest for an artificial uterus or placenta would be to use it for ex-vivo maturation of very premature fetuses. Extra-corporal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) was developed for many years but its use remains disappointing in preterm infants when compared to the important progress made with more classical clinical care. In any case, goat fetuses have been maintained alive up to 9 days in an artificial amniotic pouch, being oxygenated via ECMO., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

In a well known story Derek Parfit describes a disconnection between two entities that normally (in real life) travel together through space and time, namely your personal identity consisting of both mind and body. Realising the possibility of separation, even if it might never happen in real life, new questions arise that cast doubt on old solutions. In human reproduction, in real life, at present the fetus spends approximately nine months inside the pregnant woman. But, we might envisage other possibilities. Historically, the first era is the normal conception inside the woman, the growth of the fetus in the womb and then, after nine months, birth and the appearance of a new individual. The second era is In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF). The fetus starts outside the woman as a fertilised egg, moves to the body of the woman and spends nine month there, where the body of the woman and the fetus travel together in space-time to separate at birth. In the third era of reproductive ectogenesis, the two never travel together. The fetus spends its gestational time entirely outside the woman's body. We have two entities separated in space-time the whole time. The intimate connection consisting in the fetus being a part of the woman's body is gone. In this paper I will briefly comment on the three eras of human reproduction--and primarily on the relationship between the new individual and the woman--and then spend some time with a fictional story illustrating some moral consequences of the third era. The story is from Pig Pharmaceuticals Limited and how they in the year 2050 report the successful development of pig-related pregnancies with transgenic pigs as surrogate mothers.

The nature of two influential theories on the moral status of abortion logically commits them to welcoming the advent of ectogenesis (the gestation of human beings outside the womb) as a solution to the abortion conflict. However, qualitative research into women's response to ectogenesis reveals that both women in favour and women opposed to abortion rights reject the technology on surprisingly similar grounds. The abortion framework which led women to reject ectogenesis as an ethical resolution to unwanted pregnancy is contrasted with the moral framework which shapes formal ethical discussions of abortion. It is argued that the need for ethical relevance requires the views of ethicists to move closer to those of women.