Brave New Womb

[Katy]

Are there really people who would decline inventing or using technology to save the life of a baby because it could imply that other same-age babies/fetuses are people? I have to let you die so that nobody gets any ideas about defending other lives? We should keep 22 weeks as non-viable (terminal) so that those lives are still fair political game?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

In theory, this is a legal concern, primarily because Roe v Wade established that a fetus IS life, but a woman has the right to control her own body so as long as that fetus is not viable (IE: the life is solely dependent upon her).  Planned Parenthood and abortion activists might do everything possible to frame a fetus as not being a life, but legally there is no question that it IS.

 

In practice, very few states have limited abortion to liability, so I suspect this is more theoretical than anything else.

 

it's the same conundrum about filing murder/assault charges on someone who causes a woman to miscarry or her unborn child to die.  the argument against is used that it would be used against those who perform legal abortions. whether they were assaulting the woman and the baby was lost as a consequence - or they were assaulting to deliberately to cause the death of the unborn child.  (which happens)

 

but seriously - guys who put abortifacient drugs in their gf's drinks because they don't want a kid (but the gf does) - do need to have charges filed against them.  (sometimes they do get charged.  with what - depends upon the jurisdiction.)  but even if it's "just" reckless driving causing an accident - there should be a charge to recognize that life has value.

 

Roe V Wade established that a fetus is a life.

[maize]

but this is about micropremies - and this could be a superior option to an external incubator if that's the only other option. inside mom is always preferable - but sometimes that isn't possible.

Oh, I agree with you completely. I think it has huge promise for micro premies. My other comments were directed at the speculations that artificial wombs would somehow become preferred to natural gestation--I don't think there is a real risk of that happening because I don't think they will ever be that good, certainly not in my life time.

Edited April 26, 2017 by maize

[kewb]

Are there really people who would decline inventing or using technology to save the life of a baby because it could imply that other same-age babies/fetuses are people? I have to let you die so that nobody gets any ideas about defending other lives? We should keep 22 weeks as non-viable (terminal) so that those lives are still fair political game?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I do not believe there are people who object to life saving technology because of how it will impact a women's right to choose.

It is, however, a concern to many people how this technology will impact many aspects of law and morality. Abortion is one of those items.

[Bluegoat]

I thought that some parts of the article were strange.

 

The lead researcher used the term "mental retardation." What a backward term.

 

The ethicist suggested that disabled preemies might end up "living out their lives in institutions." The U.S. doesn't have institutions for the disabled anymore. Disabled children grow up in their families while accessing services; in foster homes; or, in group homes.

 

The same ethicist said that this might ruin the current pro-abortion argument. What is she suggesting? That it's more important to retain the right to terminate versus this new ability to save a life?

 

The researcher also said that his team didn't want to use the technology to save younger than 23 weekers because they didn't want to get mixed up in the abortion rights issue is rather odd. So he'd be okay with withholding life saving treatment?

 

Those are just some of my initial thoughts.

 

I always find this line of thinking really odd.

 

The implication seems to be that people might come to think of a fetus at that stage of development as a person, and therefore that they should have certain legal protections.

 

But to me that reveals the really sloppy thinking in asserting personhood begins at birth.  It's almost arbitrary, it has little to do with the nature of the baby.  It's convenient because then we don't have to worry about working out how to balance rights of two people that may be in conflict.

 

In pretty much any other area, people would come down very hard if we said we wanted to avoid dealing with whether a being has intrinsic rights because of how it would affect someone else.

 

If the technology reveals an inadequacy in the thinking, the remedy to me is to think about it more clearly.

 

I also think the question of termination rights could go the other way.  Perhaps if this technology begins to erase the sense of a clear break at birth that makes termination ok, but there is a strong desire in the population to retain that right, the right could extend into infanthood.  I think this might be unlikely in the US, but in other parts of the world it might not be impossible.

[Bluegoat]

Oh, I agree with you completely. I think it has huge promise for micro premies. My other comments were directed at the speculations that artificial wombs would somehow become preferred to natural gestation--I don't think there is a real risk of that happening because I don't think they will ever be that good, certainly not in my life time.

 

Have you ever read the Dune series?  In it there is a civilization that has the technology, a closely guarded secret, to grow human body parts or even entire human beings.  In a later novel it's revieled that in fact these body parts are harvested from people and the tanks to grow the people are actually women.

 

It's a lot easier to use tech to modify nature than to come up with something so complicated from scratch.

[happypamama]

While there are certainly philosophical, ethical, and religious concerns, I think it's awesome that they've even got that technology. It may have helped Nate. It could have saved his life.

 

DH and I wondered why there wasn't a synthetic amniotic fluid that could be used in cases like ours, where the fluid was extremely low. I wasn't leaking fluid. But while there is a such thing as amnioinfusion, it's a short term thing (for ultrasound purposes, I think) and not yet able to be a substitute for low fluid. So if they can approximate amniotic fluid, that would help preemies. (And cancer risk from synthetic fluid -- well, given the choice between such a risk and no baby at all, I think many of us would take our chances.). We also marveled at how much the machines can do, but they're not quite to artificial womb status. Maybe we've finally gotten there. Nate's biggest problem was that he had to use his lungs before they were ready, and he couldn't grow new lung tissue fast enough to keep the carbon dioxide in his bloodstream down enough. I'd have happily tried an artificial womb if there had been the option.

[MercyA]

Lovely, another thread where people are allowed to call abortion murder. Yet politics is banned, lol.

 

I think there's enough evidence today that those who govern us don't give a flying flip about a baby's life once it's born, nor do they believe a woman should be in charge of her own body. So no, I think it's not a good idea. Makes me think of the Handmaid's Tale, and that's already too close for comfort.

 

IDK, Dot, abortion isn't really a political issue for me--but then neither are war, poverty, aid to refugees, etc. I think we can talk about issues of rights and personhood and life and death and all of that without getting political.

 

I'll go one step further than you and say that many of those who govern us don't seem to give a flying flip about human lives either before OR after they're born.  :(

Edited April 26, 2017 by MercyA

[redsquirrel]

as the mom of a preemie, I would have so many questions.  Are outcomes better? Viability is one thing,  outcomes are another.  I saw an awful lot of babies in the NICU that were going to need lifelong intensive care and I wondered how their families were going to provide that. It's great that the NICU was able to save those babies, but what kind of support is available to them as they grow up?  Premature babies are often born to young women, women who have poor health, women who have little access to prenatal care.  When I was sitting in the NICU with my son, I was the same age as many of the other grandmothers who visited...and I was 33 at the time.  There was a sizable number of babies who rarely had a visitor the entire time I was there. It was a big open room, so you saw everything. One young mom did come once and she was talking about how she could only come because she had the day off from school and her boyfriend collected enough cans to buy her bus fair to the hospital. She was going to take home a child with intensive special needs. I still wonder what kind of care that poor baby is getting.

 

I had to spend my son's first year on 'house arrest' as I called it, lol. It was very important that his exposure to germs etc be kept to an absolute minimum. I was told not to take him to the grocery store or to a mall, it was just too dangerous.  What would have happened if I had to return to work and put my premature baby in day care? I wonder about that all the time. His outcome was excellent and he made it through his first year without being hospitalized, which I later found out is a rare thing. I give a lot of credit to our GP who was in constant contact with me, but I think some of it is due to the fact that I just kept the two of us isolated and away from strange germs.

 

I don't have any answers, just a lot of questions. If we are able to save babies earlier, are we, as a society willing to keep providing them with intensive care and a meaningful life? Or does our commitment end when they leave the hospital.  In these days of Medicaid cuts and high risk pools.... I wonder and worry.

[gardenmom5]

In theory, this is a legal concern, primarily because Roe v Wade established that a fetus IS life, but a woman has the right to control her own body so as long as that fetus is not viable (IE: the life is solely dependent upon her).  Planned Parenthood and abortion activists might do everything possible to frame a fetus as not being a life, but legally there is no question that it IS.

 

In practice, very few states have limited abortion to liability, so I suspect this is more theoretical than anything else.

 

 

Roe V Wade established that a fetus is a life.

 

you've missed the arguments in certain cases from proabortion types who don't want murder charges filed when the mother was shot/in a car accident with a dui, and it caused the death of an unborn child. 

[sassenach]

Lovely, another thread where people are allowed to call abortion murder. Yet politics is banned, lol.

 

I think there's enough evidence today that those who govern us don't give a flying flip about a baby's life once it's born, nor do they believe a woman should be in charge of her own body. So no, I think it's not a good idea. Makes me think of the Handmaid's Tale, and that's already too close for comfort.

You don't think what is a good idea? The artificial womb? On the basis of abortion rights? 

[unsinkable]

Have you ever read the Dune series? In it there is a civilization that has the technology, a closely guarded secret, to grow human body parts or even entire human beings. In a later novel it's revieled that in fact these body parts are harvested from people and the tanks to grow the people are actually women.

 

It's a lot easier to use tech to modify nature than to come up with something so complicated from scratch.

Uh, spoiler alert!

 

:lol:

 

I'm kidding. I've never read the books but they were on my someday list. I'll just move them to the bottom of the list...and by the time I get to them, I'll have forgotten this.

[Aelwydd]

I think most forms of abortion would just become outdated, like maybe horse drawn carriage accidents became less of a public health issue after the advent of the automobile. We "solved" one issue but replaced it with a new version.

 

 

I'm pro-choice in the European sense. Should be done before 12 weeks, excepting health and serious birth defects, etc. Not a fan overall of the process, because it denies a very early developing human life, and I find that sad. A waste of human potential.

 

But, I also think that the use of her body as life support for another human, should be a voluntary undertaking. So, abortion seems to me a necessary evil, so to speak. And I think that the ones who make the choice also will bear the consequences either way, and they should not be denied that right.

 

That's to say, I see the issue as a question of imminent domain. To me, the technology would potentially solve this dilemma between competing interests, but would introduce new issues in its place.

 

Total ectogenesis would likely take human reproduction to a new form of human trafficking.

 

Why leave gestation to chance, where injuries, illness, environmental toxins can occur?

 

Why incur health hazards for the mother?

 

Of the child is to be gestated artificially, why risk the hazardous genetic odds of natural conception?

 

Have gametes sifted through, matched, injected into the third party's egg (mitochondrial disease free), cultured in a Petri dish, and then geneticall analyzes again before being implanted into an artificial womb.

 

People who have their kids naturally will be pitied or despised, for their selfish risky behaviors that cause children to be born defective.

 

Just speculating, but this is one possible outcome.

[Guest]

This thread is kinda making me sick.

 

Hey!! We're working on a way to save more preterm babies.

 

But it might muddy the already muddied waters of women's rights. Oh, and, distopian science fiction!!

 

You want to know how it works now? Your water breaks at 22 weeks. No one does anything because there is nothing to be done. You wait until your moving, kicking baby dies inside you, you go into labor and watch your child die in your arms or you get an infection and are induced. It is pretty much hell on earth. If we could end that suffering for some families, I think that is a good thing.

 

I'm old enough to remember people being horrified by "test tube babies". I'm pretty sure the artificial womb doesn't signal the end of the human race anymore than that did.

[kewb]

This thread is kinda making me sick.

 

Hey!! We're working on a way to save more preterm babies.

 

But it might muddy the already muddied waters of women's rights. Oh, and, distopian science fiction!!

 

You want to know how it works now? Your water breaks at 22 weeks. No one does anything because there is nothing to be done. You wait until your moving, kicking baby dies inside you, you go into labor and watch your child die in your arms or you get an infection and are induced. It is pretty much hell on earth. If we could end that suffering for some families, I think that is a good thing.

 

I'm old enough to remember people being horrified by "test tube babies". I'm pretty sure the artificial womb doesn't signal the end of the human race anymore than that did.

 

No one is saying that working to save preterm babies should not be done or trying to negate the experience of the parents who experience it.  But nothing happens in a vacuum.  Each advance in medicine comes with moral/legal questions that need to be answered and sometimes legislated.

 

I also remember when test tube babies started and all the discussion around it.  There were a lot of questions that needed answers.  

[Aelwydd]

This thread is kinda making me sick.

 

Hey!! We're working on a way to save more preterm babies.

 

But it might muddy the already muddied waters of women's rights. Oh, and, distopian science fiction!!

 

You want to know how it works now? Your water breaks at 22 weeks. No one does anything because there is nothing to be done. You wait until your moving, kicking baby dies inside you, you go into labor and watch your child die in your arms or you get an infection and are induced. It is pretty much hell on earth. If we could end that suffering for some families, I think that is a good thing.

 

I'm old enough to remember people being horrified by "test tube babies". I'm pretty sure the artificial womb doesn't signal the end of the human race anymore than that did.

Moxie, discussing possible issues down the road does not mean there's no interim benefits. C-sections were novel at one time but have saved countless lives. I'm grateful for the option, even though some women have been court mandated and held down to have them performed.

 

I want the technology to be developed for the good it will do. Even I didn't want it, it's still inevitable I believe. But does that mean we shouldn't investigate some of the possible negatives that may also result? Ectogenesis is a possible (far off, still distant) outcome of today's limited artificial womb support systems. That's why I'm talking about, not because I don't want the technology. Like I prefer cars to horse drawn carriages, despite the problems.

[unsinkable]

"Davis also worries about whether this could blur the line between a fetus and a baby."

 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Something about this line and your post reminded me of another story in the news. It took me all day to remember it.

 

An editor at the NYT has started to refer to Female Genital Mutilation as genital cutting because FGM is a loaded cultural term.

 

Control the language, control the narrative.

 

(And control the participants, control the narrative...control who can speak to an issue to the speakers you approve...)

 

Edited to add...fixed the term.

Edited April 26, 2017 by unsinkable

[Ravin]

Just like with artificial formulas for feeding and c-sections, it is something that could be very helpful and lifesaving for a subset, and potentially problematic for many if it becomes elective.

[Aelwydd]

Just like with artificial formulas for feeding and c-sections, it is something that could be very helpful and lifesaving for a subset, and potentially problematic for many if it becomes elective.

That's a good way to frame it.

[TheReader]

The quote I found most amusing in the article was this one: "The problem is a baby raised in a machine is denied a human connection," Rothman says. "I think that's a scary, tragic thing."

 

As a mom of 3 NICU babies, I'm thinking the sociologist has never set foot inside of one. A womb-like environment would be so much more gentle on a preemie, especially a micro-preemie. 

 

The other thing I wondered, from the article, is that right now they have an equivalent 23 wk lamb, and can keep it in the artificial womb for 4 wks....so they can basically get a 23 or 24 weeker up to 28 weeks or so.....which still has huge risks and long term issues. Or it takes a 26 wk up to 32, still a rough age. I'm curious if they are working to increase the length they can use the womb, and what ages would go into this vs a standard incubator, and would they be kept in the full length of however much time they manage to reach, or only 4 wks, or only until x number of weeks, or.....? 

 

I'm fascinated by what it could mean for preemies. Several years ago, already, I read an article about a guy who developed a fluid that would help micro preemies breathe, but to my knowledge they still aren't using this. It makes me sad, and curious what has happened to his invention, and why isn't it being used yet? I hope that whatever happened to that, doesn't happen here....I hope this doesn't get killed before it becomes an option for saving lives and improving outcomes. 

[Aelwydd]

Sadie, that's terrible. I always thought that every abortion represents a societal failure - socially, economically - and the women get blamed for making the hard choices that many people just cannot fathom. It's easy to say "Murderer!" but forget that callous, backward policies and indifference to humanity that is already born, is what stacks the odds against women.

 

 

That said, as a pro-choice person, I'd hope most pro-life people here would not agree to naming you a murderer. I'd be shocked if that was the case! Most ones I know seem to regard women who have had abortions as victims themselves.

[Ravin]

The quote I found most amusing in the article was this one: "The problem is a baby raised in a machine is denied a human connection," Rothman says. "I think that's a scary, tragic thing."

 

As a mom of 3 NICU babies, I'm thinking the sociologist has never set foot inside of one. A womb-like environment would be so much more gentle on a preemie, especially a micro-preemie. 

 

The other thing I wondered, from the article, is that right now they have an equivalent 23 wk lamb, and can keep it in the artificial womb for 4 wks....so they can basically get a 23 or 24 weeker up to 28 weeks or so.....which still has huge risks and long term issues. Or it takes a 26 wk up to 32, still a rough age. I'm curious if they are working to increase the length they can use the womb, and what ages would go into this vs a standard incubator, and would they be kept in the full length of however much time they manage to reach, or only 4 wks, or only until x number of weeks, or.....? 

 

I'm fascinated by what it could mean for preemies. Several years ago, already, I read an article about a guy who developed a fluid that would help micro preemies breathe, but to my knowledge they still aren't using this. It makes me sad, and curious what has happened to his invention, and why isn't it being used yet? I hope that whatever happened to that, doesn't happen here....I hope this doesn't get killed before it becomes an option for saving lives and improving outcomes. 

 

The fluid that helps micro preemies breathe is a surfactant, and it is used.

 

Such a device as in the article taking place of an isolette would be beneficial. Having it take the place of a healthy mother's womb? Not.

[Aelwydd]

The quote I found most amusing in the article was this one: "The problem is a baby raised in a machine is denied a human connection," Rothman says. "I think that's a scary, tragic thing."

 

As a mom of 3 NICU babies, I'm thinking the sociologist has never set foot inside of one. A womb-like environment would be so much more gentle on a preemie, especially a micro-preemie.

 

The other thing I wondered, from the article, is that right now they have an equivalent 23 wk lamb, and can keep it in the artificial womb for 4 wks....so they can basically get a 23 or 24 weeker up to 28 weeks or so.....which still has huge risks and long term issues. Or it takes a 26 wk up to 32, still a rough age. I'm curious if they are working to increase the length they can use the womb, and what ages would go into this vs a standard incubator, and would they be kept in the full length of however much time they manage to reach, or only 4 wks, or only until x number of weeks, or.....?

 

 

Maybe they mean 4 weeks in the A.W. (artificial womb) and then transferred to an incubator for a bit? 28 weeks is still early. Perhaps the stress of early delivery would speed up the maturation process.

[FaithManor]

My main concern is developmental, ie. outcomes.

 

I think the elephant in the room is what is the expected outcome of e micropreemie incubated in such manner? No one ever wants to talk about quality of life, under what circumstances are extreme measures appropriate, and when are they not, and a device like this brings those hard questions rather front and center or at least should.

 

It reminds me of the original Jurassic Park movie. They asked themselves "Could we do it?" not "Should we do it?"

 

Now that said, as a science enthusiast at heart, I tend to lean towards developing the technology just for the sake of doing it because so many, many times when we do so there are unintended positives that have positive impact beyond just the narrow focus of the particular project. However, there are most definitely going to be ethical and moral conundrums to deal with, and wrangling with the issues might not be pretty.

[Bluegoat]

Uh, spoiler alert!

 

:lol:

 

I'm kidding. I've never read the books but they were on my someday list. I'll just move them to the bottom of the list...and by the time I get to them, I'll have forgotten this.

 

It's totally not a major plot point!  I don't think most people even get far enough through the series to find this out.

[maize]

The fluid that helps micro preemies breathe is a surfactant, and it is used.

 

Such a device as in the article taking place of an isolette would be beneficial. Having it take the place of a healthy mother's womb? Not.

I think she may have been referencing liquid ventilation:

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060414015051.htm

Edited April 27, 2017 by maize

[Aelwydd]

My main concern is developmental, ie. outcomes.

 

I think the elephant in the room is what is the expected outcome of e micropreemie incubated in such manner? No one ever wants to talk about quality of life, under what circumstances are extreme measures appropriate, and when are they not, and a device like this brings those hard questions rather front and center or at least should.

 

It reminds me of the original Jurassic Park movie. They asked themselves "Could we do it?" not "Should we do it?"

 

Now that said, as a science enthusiast at heart, I tend to lean towards developing the technology just for the sake of doing it because so many, many times when we do so there are unintended positives that have positive impact beyond just the narrow focus of the particular project. However, there are most definitely going to be ethical and moral conundrums to deal with, and wrangling with the issues might not be pretty.

 

ITA. I guess as with anything, there will be winners and losers. I do strongly support development of A.W. tech for cases like what Moxie and MedicMom shared. To save lives.

 

Not so sure about the implications of extending its use to elective applications in the future, that could involve the gratuitous severance of the maternal-fetal bond to attain total oversight and control of the process.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Aelwydd

[Bluegoat]

This thread is kinda making me sick.

 

Hey!! We're working on a way to save more preterm babies.

 

But it might muddy the already muddied waters of women's rights. Oh, and, distopian science fiction!!

 

You want to know how it works now? Your water breaks at 22 weeks. No one does anything because there is nothing to be done. You wait until your moving, kicking baby dies inside you, you go into labor and watch your child die in your arms or you get an infection and are induced. It is pretty much hell on earth. If we could end that suffering for some families, I think that is a good thing.

 

I'm old enough to remember people being horrified by "test tube babies". I'm pretty sure the artificial womb doesn't signal the end of the human race anymore than that did.

 

There are still legal and ethical questions that come out of IFV, and things that happen because of it.  Surrogacy can work as it does largely because IFV is possible, and that raises all kinds of questions about women's rights, children's rights, what it means to sell a person or rent a body part, what makes someone a mother, questions about medical best practice vs what capitalist best practice...

[Daria]

Maybe they mean 4 weeks in the A.W. (artificial womb) and then transferred to an incubator for a bit? 28 weeks is still early. Perhaps the stress of early delivery would speed up the maturation process.

 

I assumed from the way the article was written, that they turned off the artificial wombs after 4 weeks.  That the experiment was designed to see if the lambs could make it that long, and then they were killed. 

[maize]

Maybe they mean 4 weeks in the A.W. (artificial womb) and then transferred to an incubator for a bit? 28 weeks is still early. Perhaps the stress of early delivery would speed up the maturation process.

4 weeks in a sheep gestation is the equivalent of about 7 weeks in human gestation (as a percentage of total gestation period; sheep average 152 days, humans 280 days)

[Aelwydd]

4 weeks in a sheep gestation is the equivalent of about 7 weeks in human gestation (as a percentage of total gestation period; sheep average 152 days, humans 280 days)

Ah, ok, that makes sense.

 

Why'd they have to kill the poor lambs though? :(

[FaithManor]

Ah, ok, that makes sense.

 

Why'd they have to kill the poor lambs though? :(

Necropsy. In all likelihood they needed to test internal tissues for cellular growth, damage, and development in order to draw any meaningful conclusions on their data.

[FaithManor]

Also it should be noted, in terms of teams, that there is very little technology available to assist preterm animals survive. Long term there was probably not much that could be done for them. Ewes are not likely to take these lambs and nurture them, formula for lambs is not advanced, and a host of other issues as well.

[Dmmetler]

As a mom who lost a baby born at 22 weeks, one part of me says "he could have lived". The other part of me really worries about the consequences to the baby. At the time my DS was born, even the best technology and the highest level NICU gave him a less than 1% chance of survival and a 100% chance of pretty severe disabilities if he managed to survive. My condition complicated matters and lowered the likelihood of the baby surviving.

 

I don't know how they could test this. There is no situation that someone has a baby this early that it isn't already a major crisis, and that's not a good time to make a reasoned decision about whether to participate in a study that has only been attempted on animal models.

[TheReader]

The fluid that helps micro preemies breathe is a surfactant, and it is used.

 

Such a device as in the article taking place of an isolette would be beneficial. Having it take the place of a healthy mother's womb? Not.

 

I think this was a little different; it was like a hood that had a gel-based/liquid-based delivery system for oxygen.....although if it is the same thing, I am very very glad to hear it is in use! I hadn't heard that. 

 

Scratch the above, which makes me sound like a dork...it's the liquid respiration stuff that another poster linked later on :) 

 

And I agree with your last statement as well; I like this device for instead of an isolette, not instead of a gestating mother. 

Edited April 27, 2017 by TheReader

[TheReader]

I think she may have been referencing liquid ventilation:

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060414015051.htm

 

Yes, this. 

 

And, the fact it's "not profitable" so hasn't been developed is just sickening, and is why I wonder if this (aritificial wombs) will ever truly take off or not......or if, in the quest to justify it as profitable, we will see the other less-advised uses come into play. 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2017 by TheReader

[Dmmetler]

Sadie, that's terrible. I always thought that every abortion represents a societal failure - socially, economically - and the women get blamed for making the hard choices that many people just cannot fathom. It's easy to say "Murderer!" but forget that callous, backward policies and indifference to humanity that is already born, is what stacks the odds against women.

 

 

That said, as a pro-choice person, I'd hope most pro-life people here would not agree to naming you a murderer. I'd be shocked if that was the case! Most ones I know seem to regard women who have had abortions as victims themselves.

I have had people basically call me a murderer for agreeing to have my son delivered at 22 weeks, knowing he had almost no chance of surviving. Had I just had more faith, obviously, I would have been healed and he would have been fine. The fact that the medical team felt my life was in imminent danger, such that they had already taken steps to get a court order in place had I tried to refuse, doesn't enter into the thoughts of those who believe a woman's role is to bear children.

[TheReader]

4 weeks in a sheep gestation is the equivalent of about 7 weeks in human gestation (as a percentage of total gestation period; sheep average 152 days, humans 280 days)

 

okay, that makes sense...I was thinking since they'd adjusted the dates for human terms, they meant the equivalent to 4 wks gestation. I didn't realize, also, that they were killing the lambs at that point....how sad. :( 

 

I wonder how long the artificial womb would be effective for a human baby, how they'd decide what point to transfer to a regular isolette, etc.....

[TheReader]

I have had people basically call me a murderer for agreeing to have my son delivered at 22 weeks, knowing he had almost no chance of surviving. Had I just had more faith, obviously, I would have been healed and he would have been fine. The fact that the medical team felt my life was in imminent danger, such that they had already taken steps to get a court order in place had I tried to refuse, doesn't enter into the thoughts of those who believe a woman's role is to bear children.

 

Oh....this breaks my heart. I am so so so so sorry. :( For your loss and for the further ridiculous insult and injury of people like that who would say such horrid things. I am so sorry. 

[Guest]

I have had people basically call me a murderer for agreeing to have my son delivered at 22 weeks, knowing he had almost no chance of surviving. Had I just had more faith, obviously, I would have been healed and he would have been fine. The fact that the medical team felt my life was in imminent danger, such that they had already taken steps to get a court order in place had I tried to refuse, doesn't enter into the thoughts of those who believe a woman's role is to bear children.

I didn't "like" this but I wanted to give you big hugs. They were cruel and wrong and their theology is whack, to boot.

[happypamama]

My main concern is developmental, ie. outcomes.

 

I think the elephant in the room is what is the expected outcome of e micropreemie incubated in such manner? No one ever wants to talk about quality of life, under what circumstances are extreme measures appropriate, and when are they not, and a device like this brings those hard questions rather front and center or at least should.

 

It reminds me of the original Jurassic Park movie. They asked themselves "Could we do it?" not "Should we do it?"

 

Now that said, as a science enthusiast at heart, I tend to lean towards developing the technology just for the sake of doing it because so many, many times when we do so there are unintended positives that have positive impact beyond just the narrow focus of the particular project. However, there are most definitely going to be ethical and moral conundrums to deal with, and wrangling with the issues might not be pretty.

Well, part of the developmental problems that preemies face are because of the measures that keep them alive outside the womb, like the oxygen they need to for them to help them breathe can lead to eye problems. Or their lungs aren't developed enough, so they have long term lung problems and are often hospitalized later for respiratory infections. If they could be kept in something closer to a womb-like environment longer, that might lessen some of the long term health issues, especially if the issues are primarily because of prematurity and not because of physical or genetic abnormalities.

[FaithManor]

I have had people basically call me a murderer for agreeing to have my son delivered at 22 weeks, knowing he had almost no chance of surviving. Had I just had more faith, obviously, I would have been healed and he would have been fine. The fact that the medical team felt my life was in imminent danger, such that they had already taken steps to get a court order in place had I tried to refuse, doesn't enter into the thoughts of those who believe a woman's role is to bear children.

(HUGS)

 

BTDT got the tee shirt. When I was pregnant with our last and facing a similar decision, when I indicated that I would likely deliver early to increase my survival odds given that we already had children at home that needed me, church goers called me child murderer. I am so sorry it happened to you!

 

I would imagine that for some religious groups this device is going to pose a lot of problems. Specifically dominionist groups that believe that the primary purpose of women is only gestation and childbirth.

[happypamama]

I have had people basically call me a murderer for agreeing to have my son delivered at 22 weeks, knowing he had almost no chance of surviving. Had I just had more faith, obviously, I would have been healed and he would have been fine. The fact that the medical team felt my life was in imminent danger, such that they had already taken steps to get a court order in place had I tried to refuse, doesn't enter into the thoughts of those who believe a woman's role is to bear children.

That is horrible. :( I am sorry.

[Katy]

you've missed the arguments in certain cases from proabortion types who don't want murder charges filed when the mother was shot/in a car accident with a dui, and it caused the death of an unborn child. 

 

I didn't miss it, I just consider such arguments to be null and void given that there has been no further supreme court overruling Roe OR a constitutional amendment to redefine as less than life.  Further, unless the arguments have changed since the days my Ms. Magazine subscription lapsed, those activists are frequently more concerned with slippery slopes of possibly losing the right to have an abortion than they are with the actual current state of the constitution.  I don't know how to explain more without crossing the lines into clear political discussion, but suffice it to say such activists (and the lawyers for those activists) are coming at the issue from a much different place than the majority of voters.  Polls suggest voters tend to be more concerned with nuance AND morality, and the majority of voters tend to see shades of gray where activists see none.  Which is why most Americans have a moderate view.

[Aelwydd]

I have had people basically call me a murderer for agreeing to have my son delivered at 22 weeks, knowing he had almost no chance of surviving. Had I just had more faith, obviously, I would have been healed and he would have been fine. The fact that the medical team felt my life was in imminent danger, such that they had already taken steps to get a court order in place had I tried to refuse, doesn't enter into the thoughts of those who believe a woman's role is to bear children.

I have to say it. WTH is wrong with those people?? How...?? WHAT LOGIC lends itself to accusing you (and Sadie) like that?

 

Because that is outrageous, and frankly if some said that to a friend of mine in my hearing, I would have hit them.

 

Don't think I wouldn't either. I'm a hockey mom.

 

I wish your dd could put snakes in their beds.

 

Seriously am pissed off for you.

[Aelwydd]

(HUGS)

 

BTDT got the tee shirt. When I was pregnant with our last and facing a similar decision, when I indicated that I would likely deliver early to increase my survival odds given that we already had children at home that needed me, church goers called me child murderer. I am so sorry it happened to you!

 

I would imagine that for some religious groups this device is going to pose a lot of problems. Specifically dominionist groups that believe that the primary purpose of women is only gestation and childbirth.

Reading this made me so angry, I'm fighting tears.

 

Faith, I'm so sorry. What a horrid thing to say. Do people go to camps or something to learn how to say the most caustic thing possible to a grieving mom??

[FaithManor]

Reading this made me so angry, I'm fighting tears.

 

Faith, I'm so sorry. What a horrid thing to say. Do people go to camps or something to learn how to say the most caustic thing possible to a grieving mom??

No they just listen to sermons by asshats. At my father's funeral on Monday, my mother's pastor preached hello, fire, and brimstone to and managed to work in some very dark comments on rape and murder!!! Not a damn word of comfort, kindness, mercy, or love. So my theory is they learn from revered leaders.

 

This is why it is so difficult to have rational discussions about a topic like an artificial womb. The emotional fervor gets in the way.

[HTRMom]

I don't know your situation, but it sounds like a situation where even The Church would have approved of inducing at that point, given that you were about to die. That would not morally be considered an abortion but an unfortunately early medically required induction, unless the fetus was euthanized first, and that would be an abortion per Catholic theology.

 

Less than 1% of abortions are done to save the life of the mother, though it's at least 50% of stories circulated.

 

If a fetus is a human person, and killing a human person is murder, then abortion is logically murder. However, I would argue that the surgical abortionist is the murderer and the mother is an accomplice to varying degrees of willingness. Of course if a human at some age isn't a person yet or a human embryo at some stage isn't human yet, that doesn't apply. And if you define murder as the legal crime only, then most abortions are not murder in most countries.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aelwydd]

No they just listen to sermons by asshats. At my father's funeral on Monday, my mother's pastor preached hello, fire, and brimstone to and managed to work in some very dark comments on rape and murder!!! Not a damn word of comfort, kindness, mercy, or love. So my theory is they learn from revered leaders.

 

This is why it is so difficult to have rational discussions about a topic like an artificial womb. The emotional fervor gets in the way.

 

I guess it's inevitable that abortion would be brought into the discussion on A.W. technology. I was wanting to explore more of the other implications because it potentially affects a whole lot beyond that.

 

I'm so sorry this has caused painful reminders for you, Sadie, dmmetler, Moxie, Medic Mom, others here.

 

 

.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Aelwydd

[Audrey]

That made me want to punch them in the face. Because quite frankly, the idea that one might be better off dead than alive is a luxury only afforded to the living. They have that opinion because it's not their life they're calling worthless. If there is one thing massive and rapid immersion into the world of medically fragile special needs immaturely developed babies has given me it is a huge perspective shift on what makes life meaningful and worthwhile.

 

 

Well, that's your perspective as the non-suffering, unafflicted one.  I'm not saying that "better off dead" is the right thing.  That's a blanket statement and fallacy.  But, so is "every life is worth living" a blanket statement and fallacy.  It's very easy for a person who is not suffering to say something like that.  Few ever ask the suffering, afflicted people though -- and sometimes those people can't even genuinely articulate or express their own positions on the matter.

[FaithManor]

I don't know your situation, but it sounds like a situation where even The Church would have approved of inducing at that point, given that you were about to die. That would not morally be considered an abortion but an unfortunately early medically required induction, unless the fetus was euthanized first, and that would be an abortion per Catholic theology.

 

Less than 1% of abortions are done to save the life of the mother, though it's at least 50% of stories circulated.

 

If a fetus is a human person, and killing a human person is murder, then abortion is logically murder. However, I would argue that the surgical abortionist is the murderer and the mother is an accomplice to varying degrees of willingness. Of course if a human at some age isn't a person yet or a human embryo at some stage isn't human yet, that doesn't apply. And if you define murder as the legal crime only, then most abortions are not murder in most countries.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay, well first, your faith is not the moral line for all. I am not Catholic so the above lecture does not apply to my situation.

 

Second, again the above from you does not actually address the issue which was not what people believe in their personal faith, but the cruelty people of faith voice when others are facing their darkest moments. So your post is pretty much nothing other than rubbing salt into a wound.

 

Third getting back to the topic at hand which is an artificial womb, and what ethical and or moral implications the implication of such technology may elicit.

 

One thing that comes to mind is that it will be ridiculously expensive technology from the start, experimental, and likely not covered by standard maternity insurance policies. This could, like most things - think about when MRI's first came out - cash pay was required. Thus whether or not a micro preemie gets access will be dependent upon parental ability to pay. Rich preemies get it, poor and middle class preemies do not.

 

Now this is the norm in this country. Unable To pay has always equalled lack of access to life saving treatment. It is a concept, especially when it comes to adults or children whose parents are on public assistance, that has been accepted in our culture. However, there does tend to be a bit of tunnel vision when it comes to small infants. So it will be interesting to see what kind of outcry there may be against the makers of this technology when the price tag per day becomes known. In reality, if there is backlash, it will come when a middle class family is denied access. Everyday in this country for lack of money, poor babies die, and it goes unnoticed.

 

It does of course then open the big cauldron of corporate profit. The bottom line is that this tech is going to cost many many unbelievable millions to develop, perfect, and patent. The company has to recoup those costs somewhere because it is rare that this kind of technology is developed under grants. Who can say what a reasonable price tag is in a system in which healthcare is a for profit industry instead of research funding from taxpayer sources? If we think the epi pen debacle was disgusting, what do we say about this?

 

We say there shouldn't be a price tag on human life, and yet we place a price tag on it every day. Often in the range of $12,000 -14,000 or the cost of a year of insurance. Guaranteed that this is going to be in the tens of thousands per day of use.

 

Another issue will be bang for the buck. Until it has been used, and the long term outcomes of the little ones who survived due to its use have been tracked, there is no way to know if it will be "worth" it. Will the outcomes be good enough to warrant prolonging the little one's life, or will we find that the children suffered greatly and continue to suffer in ways that make their parents regret the decision to go ahead with treatment.

 

Again, being pretty pro science and pro medical research, I am also pro this technology just for the sake of what will be learned whether or not it is ever widely implemented. But from outcomes to prices to who gets access, to religious implications within ultra conservative sects, to how and when to implement, to establishing reasonable protocols of treatment...it has the potential to be a bit of a pandora's box.

Edited April 27, 2017 by FaithManor