Research teams have used extra-uterine systems (Biobags) to support premature fetal lambs and to bring them to maturation in a way not previously possible. The researchers have called attention to possible implications of these systems for sustaining premature human fetuses in a similar way. Some commentators have pointed out that perfecting these systems for human fetuses might alter a standard expectation in abortion practices: that the termination of a pregnancy also (inevitably) entails the death of the fetus. With Biobags, it might be possible, some argue, that no woman has the right to expect that outcome if the technology is able to sustain fetal life after an abortion. In order to protect the expectation that the termination of a pregnancy always entails the death of the fetus, Elizabeth Romanis has argued that fetuses sustained in Biobags have a status different than otherwise ‘born’ children. In support of that view, she argues that these ‘gestatelings’ are incapable of independent life. This argument involves a misunderstanding of the gestational support involved, as well as a misapprehension of neonatology practice. Here, we argue that any human fetus sustained in a Biobag would be as ‘independent’ as any other premature infant, and just as ‘born’. Neonatologists would seem to have certain presumptive moral responsibilities toward any human fetus gestating in a Biobag. It remains a separate question whether the perfection and widespread application of Biobags for premature human beings would or should alter the expectation that ending a pregnancy also entails fetal death.
Data availability statement
There are no data in this work.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors PSW and AKF conceptualised the project and developed the argument. PSW wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the final version of the manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Artificial womb technology and the frontiers of human reproduction: conceptual differences and potential implications
- Clinical challenges to the concept of ectogestation
- Regulating abortion after ectogestation
- In defence of newborns: a response to Kingma
- Gestaticide: killing the subject of the artificial womb
- Artificial wombs, birth and ‘birth’: a response to Romanis
- Artificial womb technology and the significance of birth: why gestatelings are not newborns (or fetuses)
- Subjects of ectogenesis: are ‘gestatelings’ fetuses, newborns or neither?
- Reviewing the womb
- Retrospective cohort study of all deaths among infants born between 22 and 27 completed weeks of gestation in Switzerland over a 3-year period