[HN Gopher] FDA schedules meeting to establish regulatory rules ...
___________________________________________________________________
FDA schedules meeting to establish regulatory rules for artificial
womb trials
Author : apsec112
Score : 52 points
Date : 2023-08-29 14:42 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.fda.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.fda.gov)
| stevenwoo wrote:
| It's only for use as alternative to standard treatment on
| extremely premature patients in neonatal intensive care units,
| not something out of Vorkosigan saga or Dune if you only read the
| first few books.
| slashdev wrote:
| Sure, that's the MVP. But we all know where it's going.
|
| I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, just pointing out
| the technology won't stop there.
| [deleted]
| remarkEon wrote:
| Yeah, I'm willing to say it's very bad.
|
| It's the first step toward commoditizing human life, in a way
| that isn't dependent on some Marxist analysis of capitalism.
| Maybe some think that's fine, and that having designer
| children is "good".
| kevinventullo wrote:
| It's way past the first step. Contemplate the terminology
| "Human Resources".
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Designer children is good if the design is "free of
| oppressive afflictions".
|
| Frankly it seems unethical to do otherwise if it's an
| option.
| swader999 wrote:
| Good luck with agreeing on oppressive afflictions. Some
| would argue that some affliction is even desirable.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Don't see how that matters
| Avicebron wrote:
| I mean, I can see it going pretty south if some people
| decide that a certain skin color qualifies as an
| "oppressive affliction"
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Ok, but so what? We can agree that some people will be
| upset if some things are genetically curated. Is that an
| argument for a blanket ban against genetic curation?
| Because I think it's weak as hell.
| Avicebron wrote:
| Well if we swap "genetic curation" with "eugenics" I
| think you'd be hard pressed to stand up in front of a
| group and argue that in 2023.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| > Well if we swap "genetic curation" with "eugenics" I
| think you'd be hard pressed to stand up in front of a
| group and argue that in 2023.
|
| Because we're a generation of snowflakes and I'd
| recommend to get a better set of friends you can talk
| freely about stuff.
|
| People are so scared of being branded racist or nazi that
| common sense goes out of the door.
|
| You're performing eugenics or selective breeding when you
| select a partner to have children with.
|
| People with different ethnic backgrounds will have
| different characteristic and of course you want to
| maximise the chances of success for your kids.
|
| Balancing them out (often by mixing races) and granting
| both parents advantages to the kids is the optimal
| solution.
|
| For example, I got strong hairs from my dad and a dark
| skin from my mom so I'm not bald like relatives on my mom
| side and I can stand in the sun for way longer than my
| dad could.
|
| What's wrong with that? I'd say we're genetically
| predisposed for doing that already, without access to
| information. Eg. I always liked blonde pale girls who are
| the polar opposite of myself
| Supermancho wrote:
| There is not going to be debate over every single aspect
| of human suffering. eg Progeria and parietal bone defects
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I am willing to say releasing women from the burden and
| risks of pregnancy is good.
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| Why don't we just build the experience machine if
| features of our nature are burdens to be discarded at the
| earliest opportunity? It is not obvious that a life
| devoid of any hardship should be the ultimate goal of
| technology. Some of you are way too quick to discard core
| aspects of humanity out of some bastardized concept of
| the good.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Not sure if I should respond, but are we really debating
| if preventing someone from experiencing the risks and
| pain involved in pregnancy and childbirth is a
| bastardized concept of "good"? Should we remove the
| option for women to receive epidurals, lest they get to
| miss out on a "core" aspect of humanity?
|
| What other kinds of pain and risk do you think people
| should be subject to?
|
| FYI, evolution does not care about the wellbeing of the
| individual, nor is there any inherent reason the
| mechanism that evolution comes up with should be held up
| as the ideal.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Artificial surrogacy and "designer children" are two
| different, somewhat orthogonal concerns. Most IVF today
| involves no genetics modification. It's always been a
| slippery slope argument that surrogacy "inevitably" leads
| to genetically designing children.
|
| Artificial wombs would certainly change the economics of
| surrogacy, but it's also a bit of a slippery slope to think
| it would commoditize it. It doesn't change most of what we
| know about IVF and likely keeps the same (relatively high)
| costs, it maybe just disrupts the labor market for
| surrogacy. (Which today from what I hear is an extremely
| expensive market prone to shortages.)
| Minor49er wrote:
| I agree, though we're past the first step. Massachusetts
| has been trying this through The Bone Marrow and Organ
| Donation Program which would see prisoners trade jail time
| for body organs [1]. Probably inspired by China's forced
| organ harvesting [2]. Not to mention that commoditizing
| human life has been happening through things like human
| trafficking [3], or surrogacy which exploits poor women [4]
|
| [1] https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822
|
| [2] https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/articles/analysis-
| killing-...
|
| [3] https://www.dhs.gov/blue-campaign/infographic
|
| [4] https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/mar/28/cr
| oss-b...
|
| I'm glad that the people in power have everyone's best
| interests at heart /s
| brnt wrote:
| Human reproduction is at or over the limits of what is
| possible: our heads really don't fit through our pelvii
| anymore. The trajectory of our species and our genus has
| been going in the direction of brain enlargement, so it
| would seem only natural we use that brain to enable
| evolution of the brain by changing our strenuous births.
| Remember, there's a ton of science and experience involved
| in keeping mothers alive already. It is only natural to
| make the next step.
|
| Designing kids and/or producing (for capitalistic purposes)
| them seems orthogonal to artificial wombs to me: that
| requires other things besides merely a couple who ask a
| hospital to fertilize their egg with their sperm and place
| it in a device.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| > It is only natural to make the next step.
|
| One concern is that standardized use of this would
| seriously risk making humans go extinct in the future.
|
| If we completely remove the selection constraint that
| humans are able to reproduce, over time functionality
| bugs will creep into that area. If, at any point in the
| future, society collapses to the point where we are no
| longer able to build these machines, we may no longer be
| able to reproduce and will simply die off.
|
| Maintaining this constraint on humans seems prudent. If
| and when we can manipulate genetics well enough to fix
| the issue in the actual human organism in a way that is
| not fragile, then that would be fine.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > It's the first step toward commoditizing human life,
|
| It's also the first step toward other things...like solar
| exploration and maybe extra-solar exploration.
| [deleted]
| seydor wrote:
| It will get there
| WorldMaker wrote:
| An interesting scifi setting that explores _some_ of the morals
| /ethics/religious impacts of artificial wombs is the Vorkosigan
| saga.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorkosigan_Saga
| bhouston wrote:
| You just know that once these work, some narcissistic billionaire
| is going to create a whole ton of offspring using this.[1]
|
| [1] https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/how-
| jeffrey...
| wmf wrote:
| What if surrogacy is cheaper and more reliable than sci-fi.
| (This also applies to human cloning.)
| bhouston wrote:
| Surrogacy for now is cheaper. Generally the trend with
| automation across many industries is that it becomes cheaper
| in the long run with more predictable/controlled results.
|
| At some point in the future, it will probably seem quaint and
| sort of primitive to grow humans inside of other humans - as
| well as rely upon random sperm and ovum selection. Why live
| with the inconvenience and increased risk when there are
| safer and easier ways to do it with more predictable results.
| Racing0461 wrote:
| tbh its for the best, abortion/birth control/sperm banks already
| made "a man" useless (not men, just any individual man). It would
| just have the same effect on women and then we can move forward
| with the complete commoditization of m/f intersexual dynamics.
| version_five wrote:
| I'm not religious, but think this is one of those things where we
| could use some "spiritual" (basically learned over our evolution)
| guidance about what an appropriate use of this technology is,
| instead of what appears to be a nihilistic libertarian approach
| that we end up taking.
| xwdv wrote:
| It would be neat if we could find a way to gestate a child in
| artificial wombs a bit longer, maybe from 9 months to 18 months
| to have a more developed baby at birth and skip some of the more
| annoying early months. Then parental leave could really feel more
| like a vacation to spend time with your child doing meaningful
| stuff, instead of getting no sleep taking care of an eating and
| shitting, noise making creature.
| seydor wrote:
| How about 15 years or so? they could listen to school lectures
| in the meanwhile
| pc86 wrote:
| Oh man relevant bio is relevant, holy shit. Or this is a
| borderline brilliant troll account.
| therealdkz wrote:
| it would be also neat to have the right to abort up to 18 years
| and have replacement pipeline ready just in case one does not
| work out.
| boppo1 wrote:
| > Then parental leave could really feel more like a vacation to
| spend time with your child doing meaningful stuff, instead of
| getting no sleep taking care of an eating and shitting, noise
| making creature.
|
| Then they'd just drop parental leave.
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| "Baby bonding leave" should still apply just the same to a
| child born at 18 months.
| crooked-v wrote:
| The comment is a dismissive way to put it, but I find it a
| conceptually interesting idea, considering that, because of the
| limitations of our hips, human babies are arguably premature
| births compared to most other mammals.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| Dolly the sheep was the first clone (who survived). But her life
| was significantly shorter than a natural sheep, and I understand
| end of life diseases but hard. In other words there is good
| argument to be made that Dolly's creation / birth was unethical.
|
| Now multiply that about a thousand fold for this awful idea. We
| have no idea what the complex interplay between womb and foetus
| is, hormone and other signalling between mother and baby.
|
| I know this is a tiny step, but really. Don't any of these people
| watch movies ? You know how bad this will get ...
| seydor wrote:
| If movies are our guide, we should all shoot ourselves right
| now
| gremlinsinc wrote:
| if movies are our guide we don't need to, Terminators will do
| that for us at worst or use us as an energy source like the
| matrix at Best.
| smartplaya2001 wrote:
| Sounds like the beginning of the matrix
| spondylosaurus wrote:
| Sounds like any widespread use is still a ways out if we're in
| the "setting rules for trials" phase now, but I'm curious what
| impact artificial wombs would have on abortion laws in the US, if
| any.
|
| The non-religious aspects of the abortion debate partly hinge on
| this idea of fetal viability (specifically, the time at which
| most fetuses have a high chance of survival outside the womb),
| and I could imagine artificial wombs bringing that viability
| threshold down a bit. Which then opens the door to a whole other
| debate about whether terminating a pregnancy could (or should)
| involve transplantation. I know some current bioethics argue that
| abortion is currently permissible because the death of the fetus
| is merely a side effect of terminating a pregnancy, rather than
| its goal...
| waterheater wrote:
| > I'm curious what impact artificial wombs would have on
| abortion laws in the US, if any.
|
| EDIT: Holy cow, this post got way, way longer than I expected.
|
| The first step in the analysis is that, since no abortion law
| has been enacted by the US government, each State has its own
| set of abortion laws. Because killing a person is clearly
| illegal, the legality (not morality or ethics) of abortion
| hinges on when a developing clump of cells becomes protected
| under the law.
|
| States have severe disagreement on that point. For example,
| consider the state of Georgia. The following is their
| definition of a person:
|
| > There are two classes of persons: natural and artificial.
| "Natural person" means any human being including an unborn
| child. Corporations are artificial persons. They are creatures
| of the law and, except insofar as the law forbids it, they are
| subject to be changed, modified, or destroyed at the will of
| their creator. Unless otherwise provided by law, any natural
| person, including an unborn child with a detectable human
| heartbeat, shall be included in population based
| determinations. As used in this Code section, the term:
| "Detectable human heartbeat" means embryonic or fetal cardiac
| activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of
| the heart within the gestational sac. "Unborn child" means a
| member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development
| who is carried in the womb. [2]
|
| By law in Georgia, the status of personhood applies to a member
| of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is
| carried in the womb with embryonic or fetal cardiac activity or
| the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the heart
| within the gestational sac. The preposition "in the womb"
| clearly indicates a womb present in a human being, as it
| doesn't say "in a womb." As such, I do not expect legal
| personhood will automatically extend to a human being gestated
| in an artificial womb in Georgia.
|
| On the other hand, consider the state of Massachusetts. The
| very beginning of their code is:
|
| > All persons who are citizens of the United States and who are
| domiciled in this commonwealth are citizens thereof. [3]
|
| Now, does the state of Massachusetts define in the state code
| what a "person" is? As far as I can tell, no, they don't (if
| someone else knows better, please chime in). A ballot
| initiative is trying to do that right now [4]. It seems that
| what constitutes a person in Massachusetts is less clear than
| in Georgia and is more a function of general consensus in
| society. As such, it's possible that a human being gestated in
| an artificial womb in Massachusetts would have legal
| personhood, and it's also possible that legal personhood is
| granted by governing authority. It's difficult to state.
|
| What about at the federal level? The US code speaks on
| personhood as follows:
|
| > [For the federal government], the words "person", "human
| being", "child", and "individual", shall include every infant
| member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
| stage of development. As used in this section, the term "born
| alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens,
| means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her
| mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after
| such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart,
| pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of
| voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has
| been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
| occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
| section, or induced abortion. [1]
|
| At the federal level, the status of personhood is attained when
| an infant homo sapiens is completely removed from his or her
| mother.
|
| So, by these laws, abortion becomes murder in Georgia after the
| heartbeat of a homo sapiens in the womb is detected, in
| Washington DC when an infant homo sapiens is completely removed
| from their mother, and in Massachusetts...well, it's
| complicated. Because the attainment of personhood is unclear,
| it's unclear precisely when abortion becomes murder. As such,
| Massachusetts specifically legislates when abortion is and
| isn't permissible without reference to personhood [5]. EDIT: In
| Wisconsin, before Roe and now post-Roe, abortion is murder.
|
| So, on artificial wombs, based on current laws, I'd wager:
| Georgia will say you're not a person, Massachusetts will be the
| Wild West, Wisconsin says you're a human being but not born
| alive, and the federal government says you're not a person.
|
| In my personal opinion, clear definition of legal personhood is
| the best approach, particularly because personal rights under
| the law stem from recognition as a legal person. From there, it
| becomes simple to state the precise conditions of when a clump
| of cells gains legal rights, be that at conception, presence of
| heartbeat, or live birth.
|
| This is obviously hypothetical and should not be done, but I
| wonder if an evil company could exploit Georgia's laws to set
| up artificial womb farms and produce non-person human beings
| who exist solely as property. Georgia could easily prevent this
| by explicitly banning artificial wombs.
|
| I believe these FOUR (not three, see edit) perspectives capture
| the essential elements of artificial womb legality across the
| USA.
|
| EDIT: I kept doing some research, and Wisconsin's perspective
| distinct from those three:
|
| >[Concerning an abortion]..."unborn child" means a human being
| from the time of conception until it is born alive. [8]
|
| > Live birth: In this subsection, "breathes" means draws air
| into and expels it out of the lungs one or more times. "Live
| birth" means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or
| her mother, of a human being, at any stage of development, who,
| after the expulsion or extraction, breathes or has a beating
| heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of
| voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has
| been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
| occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, a cesarean
| section, or an abortion, as defined in s. 253.10 (2) (a). [6]
|
| > An individual who undergoes a live birth is born alive. If a
| statute or rule refers to a live birth or to the circumstance
| in which an individual is born alive, the statute or rule shall
| be construed so that whoever undergoes a live birth as the
| result of an abortion...has the same legal status and legal
| rights as a human being at any point after the human being
| undergoes a live birth as the result of natural or induced
| labor or a cesarean section. [The preceding] may not be
| construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract a legal status
| or legal right that is applicable to a human being at any point
| before the human being undergoes a live birth. [7]
|
| Wisconsin doesn't designate personhood like Georgia does but
| instead says a human being comes into existence at conception
| and is born alive when undergoing a live birth or born during a
| failed abortion procedure. Note their "live birth" definition's
| alignment with the federal government's. However, an artificial
| womb in Wisconsin may create a situation where you're a human
| being but never born alive, meaning the definition of "unborn
| child" is not satisfied, meaning you can do anything you want
| to a human being created in an artificial womb.
|
| Interestingly, the long-existing Wisconsin definition of
| "unborn child" was unworkable under the Roe v. Wade paradigm.
|
| [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
|
| [2]
| https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-1/chapter-2/...
|
| [3]
| https://law.justia.com/codes/massachusetts/2022/part-i/title...
|
| [4]
| https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Definition_of_a_Person...
|
| [5] https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-
| ab...
|
| [6]
| https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/990.01(19...
|
| [7]
| https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/990.001(1...
|
| [8]
| https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/940.04(6)
| kylebyproxy wrote:
| > applies to a member of the species Homo sapiens at any
| stage of development who is carried in the womb with
| embryonic or fetal cardiac activity
|
| The text of the Georgia statute you cited only uses
| detectable human heartbeat as an example ("including"), not a
| requirement for personhood.
|
| > "Unborn child" means a member of the species Homo sapiens
| at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.
|
| This would seem open-ended enough to apply to individual
| eggs.
| alaaalawi wrote:
| its really leads to all sorts of question. when markets for
| eggs and sperms to be sold directly to interested (the layman)
| are there and the buyer funds the rent of the artificial womb
| and the food/nutrition + bio conditions. will he be the father
| or the owner? if more over the buyer have a farm (so to speak)
| of wombs?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Perhaps whatever policies exist around surrogate pregnancies
| now would apply there also.
| bhouston wrote:
| This already exists just with surrogacy as there are both egg
| and sperm banks available to those who need them.
|
| A lot of Hollywood stars these days are using surrogacy, it
| is quite common: https://people.com/parents/celebrities-who-
| have-used-surroga...
| Melting_Harps wrote:
| > This already exists just with surrogacy as there are both
| egg and sperm banks available to those who need them.
|
| True, and if you saw what played out during COVID you'll
| realize there is a massive market for this: during COVID
| healthy, viable sperm supply outstripped supply
| significnatly, and the market dynamics went into effect.
| Some so brazen as to advertise on FB to do so [0].
|
| Surrogacy continued to thrive during COVID and was only
| hampered because of the Russian invasion, it is hoime to
| perhaps one of the biggest fertility/surrogacy countries on
| Earth. Lots of children were bron during the war and have
| not been reunited with their families yet, either. It's one
| of the stark and bleaker parts that make me think that
| while we are likely inching closer towards a brave New
| World situation, with all the dire implications that go
| with it, that when it comes to fertility it might be the
| best of all bad solutions.
|
| 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/business/sperm-
| donors-fac...
|
| 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/12/world/europe/ukraine-
| surr...
| olliej wrote:
| No, the right to abortion is not hinged on "fetal viability",
| it's "can the state force someone to undertake a medical
| procedure". Slapping "fetal viability" just means "can the
| state force someone to undertake a medical procedure to save
| someone else's life".
|
| Very simply, every "a fetus is a person and the state should
| force it to be carried to term" is no different from "if a
| person needs a kidney or they will die, and you are a match for
| that person, then you are required to give them your kidney".
|
| Adding an artificial womb to this does not change that. All
| that changes is what medical procedure is being forced.
|
| Artificial wombs would allow people who for whatever reason are
| unable to get or remain pregnant, to have a child without
| having a surrogate involved. It does nothing more than that.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| It changes that instead of killing a person you can carry the
| pregnancy to completion even if the mother wants to kill her
| unborn son/daughter.
|
| Right now abortion consists often in dismembering the fetus,
| killing him/her and then scraping him/her from the womb.
|
| Hopefully in the future we can extract them from the womb and
| put them in an artificial womb instead.
|
| It's also great for surrogacy and the Men Gone Their Own Way
| movement.
|
| At the same time I fear it will be weaponised by governments
| to create humans at will and create armies (before robots are
| more viable)
| Quillbert182 wrote:
| This is a bit disingenuous. "A fetus is a person and the
| state should force it to be carried to term" is generally not
| the argument, the argument is "A fetus is a person and you
| should not be allowed to actively kill it."
| tantalor wrote:
| Copying from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_womb,
|
| _Artificial uteri may expand the range of fetal viability,
| raising questions about the role that fetal viability plays
| within abortion law. Within severance theory, for example,
| abortion rights only include the right to remove the fetus, and
| do not always extend to the termination of the fetus. If
| transferring the fetus from a woman 's womb to an artificial
| uterus is possible, the choice to terminate a pregnancy in this
| way could provide an alternative to aborting the fetus._
|
| Refs:
|
| 1. "Built in Obsolescence: The Coming End to the Abortion
| Debate"
| https://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&c...
|
| 2. "Artificial Wombs Could Outlaw Abortion"
| https://web.archive.org/web/20191012213054/http://www.mattle...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-29 23:01 UTC)