Life begins at....

In light of the recent defeat of the embryos-are-full-persons amendment in Colorado, this article from New Scientist from a few days ago sheds some interesting light on the spectrum of thought on when life (or more specifically moral and/or legal status) begins:

[Whether the legal rights enjoyed by citizens in the state of Colorado should extend to embryos from the point of fertilisation will be decided by its voters on 4 November. A "yes" decision could pave the way for anti-abortion legislation. But an online poll of people with a range of nationalities and religions shows opinion varies widely on the age-old question of when life begins.

The poll was part of a questionnaire compiled by the IVF clinic Reproductive Biology Associates in Atlanta, Georgia, to see how people might view new reproductive technologies.

The Colorado ballot will ask voters whether they think an embryo becomes a person when the sperm and egg fuse. Of the 643 poll respondents, just 22.7 per cent believe this is when life begins. The most popular answer was "when the fetal heartbeat becomes detectable", garnering 23.5 per cent of answers, while "when the embryo attaches to the womb lining" got 15 per cent.

"It demonstrates that this question doesn't have a right or wrong answer," says Jackie Friedman of Reproductive Biology Associates, which will present the survey results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in San Francisco next week.

Unsurprisingly, among Roman Catholics sperm-egg fusion won. In contrast, Jews, agnostics, atheists, Muslims and IVF recipients gave fetal heartbeat the most votes. In North America, 27 per cent chose sperm-egg fusion, 24 per cent heartbeat detection and 18 per cent womb attachment.]

From issue 2680 of New Scientist magazine, 29 October 2008, page 6

Field of Dreams: Developing Rules for Artificial Wombs

In 1989 the movie Field of Dreams promised, "if you build it, they will come". And come they did: all those hoping to have their faith in something bigger than them, restored. For the title character, Ray Kinsella, the field gave him the opportunity to see his father, again and create a relationship the two never had.

I'm reminded of that movie as I think about the development of an artificial womb. 'If you build it, they will come". They, being childless couples, in hopes of a bringing their baby into the world, the fulfillment of their dreams. But along with the honest and pure of heart will come those less chaste. As in the movie, the field attracted plenty of gawkers and those who just wanted to be part of something special. But should they have been allowed to partake in something so dear? That will be the question when the A/W is finally developed. Who should be allowed to utilize something so sacred? For afterall, what happened to the 'mystery of childbirth'? Should prior constraints be placed on this technology so, in advance of it's 'birth' all the players know the rules? In the movie, if a player walked off the field they forfeited their right to continue playing. For them, the only thing that would entice them to leave the confines of the field was saving a life.

There will be pressure on those entrusted to manage the artificial wombs to allow fetuses to grow, not specifically for a healthy child who will live a full life, but for a child who will provide spare parts for children who are already disabled in some fashion. And there will be pressure to allow that womb to provide safe haven for women who are simply not inclinded to endure the discomfort, physically and socially, of pregnancy. Shall they be allowed to utilize this technology?
We can't simply 'build it and they will come". That's not responsible when you consider lives are at stake. This field of dreams needs some rules before the game can begin.

Benita Zahn

SFGate: Development of Articial Wombs

'Silicon womb' to begin fertility trials

Dude, Where's my artificial womb?

A couple of our bloggers (Terry Tomsick and Jennifer Bard) have written articles on ectogenesis (aka the artificial womb or the uterine replicator), which is a fascinating area, considering all the ethical, legal, and social implications. And just in time for Mother's Day bioGeek and blogger Terry Johnson also speaks to this issue at the IO9 website:

"Whether you'd prefer a new and improved reproductive system installed as a replacement for your own or external to yourself (say, next to the washing machine), there are a few recent advancements bringing it a step closer to reality. An emulsified liquid blood substitute called perflubron has had some success used as a replacement for amniotic fluid for premature babies in respiratory distress. It's not a complete replacement for the complex stew of hormones, lipids, and proteins normally present in the amniotic fluid, it is at least a promising way to get oxygen into developing lungs."

He concludes, "we're still many decades away from a safe, human uterine replicator that can bring an embryo from conception to zeroeth birthday party. Even once we've sorted out the technical aspects of the womb itself, we'll have to deal with what the rest of the mother's body contributes to development. Hormones have already been mentioned, but baby also borrows mommy's disease-fighting machinery. Our replicator will require nearly complete endocrine and immune systems, too.

All in all, I'd take a serious look at adoption."

Full article accessible here.