Authors : Shreya Patil

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 5 - May

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/5n95jumj

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25may1385

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Artificial womb technology (AWT) seeks to mimic the intrauterine environment to facilitate the growth of premature babies, with the potential to close the gap between existing neonatal care and natural gestation. In the last sixty years, developments such as the Extra-uterine Environment for Neonatal Development (EXT). These systems employ extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and sterile biobags to simulate the amniotic cavity, creating a controlled environment for fetal growth. AWT can potentially decrease complications of extreme prematurity, including respiratory distress and infection, by creating a more physiologically suitable environment for growth. Moreover, AWT may be an option in instances of placental insufficiency, which can potentially enhance infant and maternal outcomes by reducing the risks of high-risk pregnancies. Nevertheless, the use of AWT poses ethical and societal concerns, such as the legal rights of the fetus in an artificial womb, parental autonomy in decision-making, effects on maternal-fetal bonding, and accessibility and cost-effectiveness. In addition, the possibility of full ectogenesis - gestation outside the human body altogether compromises conventional definitions of pregnancy. It may have far-reaching effects on societal attitudes toward reproduction and parenthood. Continued research and interdisciplinarity are necessary to address these challenges and ensure that AWT is incorporated into clinical practice in a way that is both scientifically valid and ethically sound.

Keywords : Artificial Womb Technology, Ectogenesis, Neonatal Care, Prematurity, Bioethics, Clinical Translation.

References :

1. Bulletti, Carlo, Antonio Palagiano, Caterina Pace, Angelica Cerni, Andrea Borini, and Dominique de Ziegler. "The Artificial Womb." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1221 (2011): 124–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.05999.x.
2. Kukora, Stephanie K., George B. Mychaliska, and Elliott Mark Weiss. "Ethical Challenges in First-in-Human Trials of the Artificial Placenta and Artificial Womb: Not All Technologies Are Created Equally, ethically." Journal of Perinatology 43 (2023): 1337–1342. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-023-01713-5.
3.   De Bie, Felix R., Marcus G. Davey, Abby C. Larson, Jan Deprest, and Alan W. Flake. 2020. “Artificial Placenta and Womb Technology: Past, Current, and Future Challenges Towards Clinical Translation.” Prenatal Diagnosis 40(12): 1636–1649. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5821
4.  Dharmapalan, Biju. 2024. “Artificial Womb: A Revolutionary Reproductive Technology for Next-Gen Humans.” Science Reporter, May 2024, 24–28.
5. Romanis, Elizabeth Chloe. 2018. “Artificial Womb Technology and the Frontiers of Human Reproduction: Conceptual Differences and Potential Implications.” Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (11): 751–755. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-104999.
6. Romanis, Elizabeth Chloe. 2019. “Artificial Womb Technology and the Significance of Birth: Why Gestatelings Are Not Newborns (or Fetuses).” Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (11): 728–731. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105723.
7. Singer, Peter, and Deane Wells. 1984. The Reproductive Revolution: New Ways of Making Babies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Dharmapalan, Biju. 2024. “Artificial Womb: A Revolutionary Reproductive Technology for Next-Gen Humans.” Science Reporter, May 2024, 24–28.
9. Kilby, Mark D., Anthony Johnson, and Dick Oepkes, eds. 2020. Fetal Therapy: Scientific Basis and Critical Appraisal of Clinical Benefits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Partridge, Elizabeth A., Marcus G. Davey, Matthew A. Hornick, Paul E. McGovern, Ali Y. Mejaddam, Jay D. Vrecenak, et al. 2017. “An Extra-Uterine System to Physiologically Support the Extreme Premature Lamb.” Nature Communications 8: 15112. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15112
11. Zhao, Cheng, Emilie Wildschutz, Vladyslav Bondarenko, Panayiotis Maghsoudlou, and Matthew J. Feneley. 2024. “A Volume-Adjustable Artificial Womb for Extremely Preterm Infants.” Transplant International 37: 12947. https://doi.org/10.3389/ti.2024.12947
12. Kukora, Stephanie K., George B. Mychaliska, and Elliott Mark Weiss. 2023. “Ethical Challenges in First-in-Human Trials of the Artificial Placenta and Artificial Womb: Not All Technologies Are Created Equally, ethically.” Journal of Perinatology 43: 1337–1342. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-023-01713-5.
13. Lantos, John D. 2001. The Lazarus Case: Life-and-Death Issues in Neonatal Intensive Care. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
14.   De Bie, Felix R., Sarah D. Kim, Sourav K. Bose, Pamela Nathanson, Emily A. Partridge, Alan W. Flake, and Chris Feudtner. "Ethics Considerations Regarding Artificial Womb Technology for the Fetonate." The American Journal of Bioethics 23, no. 5 (2023): 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2048738.
15.   Kukora, Stephanie K., George B. Mychaliska, and Elliott Mark Weiss. "Ethical Challenges in First-in-Human Trials of the Artificial Placenta and Artificial Womb: Not All Technologies Are Created Equally, ethically." Journal of Perinatology 43 (2023): 1337–1342. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-023-01713-5.
16.  Veres, Ioan. "Artificial Wombs: A Theological-Ethical Analysis about Partial Ectogenesis." Dignitas 28, nos. 1–2 (2021): 22–28.
17. Yuko, Elizabeth Ivana. Is the Development of Artificial Wombs Ethically Desirable? PhD diss., Dublin City University, 2012.