Gestaticide: killing the subject of the artificial womb

Abstract

The rapid development of artificial womb technologies means that we must consider if and when it is permissible to kill the human subject of ectogestation—recently termed a ‘gestateling’ by Elizabeth Chloe Romanis—prior to ‘birth’. We describe the act of deliberately killing the gestateling as gestaticide and argue that there are good reasons to maintain that gestaticide is morally equivalent to infanticide, which we consider to be morally impermissible. First, we argue that gestaticide is harder to justify than abortion, primarily because the gestateling is completely independent of its biological parents. Second, we argue that gestaticide is morally equivalent to infanticide. To demonstrate this, we explain that gestatelings are born in a straightforward sense, which entails that killing them is as morally serious as infanticide. However, to strengthen our overall claim, we also show that if gestatelings are not considered to have been born, killing them is still equivalent to killing neonates with congenital anomalies and disabilities, which again is infanticide. We conclude by considering how our discussion of gestaticide has implications for the permissibility of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from gestatelings.

Interprofessional Consensus Regarding Design Requirements for Liquid-Based Perinatal Life Support (PLS) Technology

“…These goals align with current views presented in literature, displaying that the physiologic needs of the subject of PLS-based treatment are equal to the physiologic needs of an unborn fetus (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(25)(26)(27).…”

“…Indeed, when successful, i.e., when PLS-based treatment would allow human fetal development and organ maturation as in utero, (lifelong) complications following preterm birth and neonatal (intensive) care could be prevented (12)(13)(14). On the other hand, the technology raises important societal-ethical and legal issues (17)(18)(19)(20)(21). Recently, we have established a consortium of healthcare professionals, designers, ethicists, researchers and patient representatives to contribute to the development of PLS technology.…”

Why Ectogestation Is Unlikely to Transform the Abortion Debate: a Discussion of ‘Ectogestation and the Problem of Abortion’

“…A further issue raised by transferring pregnanciesto an artificial womb is that it means creating a new category of killing-gestaticide (Rodger et al 2020). Gestaticide describes the deliberate killing of the subject of an artificial womb.…”

“…Finally, I argue that artificial womb technology shifts the debate away from the foetus to the human subject of the artificial womb-what Elizabeth Chloe Romanis (2018) has termed the gestateling. It creates a new category of killing-gestaticide-which will more closely resemble the ethical debate around infanticide rather than abortion (Rodger et al 2020).…”

Clinical challenges to the concept of ectogestation

“…Traditional NIC is best understood as a neonate supported with oxygen support via the lungs, parenteral nutrition, pharmacotherapy, etc in an NIC unit (NICU) 11. As others, including me, have previously written, Romanis’s arguments fail to demonstrate why the Biobag necessitates creating a new ontological category between born and unborn1 12–14 Fellow critics of Romanis’s argument, though for different reasons, include Kingma and Finn 5. Kingma and Finn agree with Romanis that the Biobag necessitates a third ontological category between born and unborn, but they disagree with Romanis’s contention that the Biobag treats a gestateling ‘as if it had never been born.’5 6 Rather, Kingma and Finn propose that moving from fetus to neonate requires both ‘birth-by-location’ (physical separation from the mother’s natural womb) and ‘birth-by-physiology’ (the rapid sequence of changes in the fetal anatomy and physiology in the peripartum period) 5…”