Neonatal incubator or artificial womb? Distinguishing ectogestation and ectogenesis using the metaphysics of pregnancy

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? Consi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Bioethics Vol. 34; no. 4; pp. 354 - 363
Main Authors: Kingma, Elselijn, Finn, Suki
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: England Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.05.2020
Subjects:
Anatomical systems
Artificial
artificial womb
Autonomy
Classification
ectogenesis
ectogestation
Ethics
fetus
Fetuses
gestateling
Gestation
Infants
Medical ethics
Metaphysics
Neonatal care
Neonates
Newborn babies
Physical characteristics
Physiology
Pregnancy
Reproductive technologies
Technology
Transformation
Uterus
ectogenesis
artificial womb
ectogestation
pregnancy
ethics
metaphysics
gestateling
fetus
ISSN:0269-9702, 1467-8519, 1467-8519
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0269-9702
1467-8519
1467-8519
DOI:10.1111/bioe.12717