In:
Journal of Medical Ethics, BMJ, Vol. 49, No. 2 ( 2023-02), p. 115-120
Abstract:
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’.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0306-6800
,
1473-4257
DOI:
10.1136/medethics-2021-107892
Language:
English
Publisher:
BMJ
Publication Date:
2023
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2026397-1
SSG:
0
SSG:
1
SSG:
5,1
