ARTIFICIAL WOMB TECHNOLOGY READY FOR HUMAN TRIALS, RAISES BIG ETHICAL QUESTIONS
The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), renowned for its medical innovations in pediatrics, is at the helm of a revolutionary medical intervention which foresees considerable implications for the future. As early as 2017, CHOP boldly broke scientific ground with the successful completion of an artificial-womb experiment involving a lamb. The team is now keenly awaiting approval for a human clinical trial that will utilize this groundbreaking technology: EXTEND.
Despite the science-fiction likeness of this scenario, the intent is not to replace natural birth or encourage artificial conception but rather to extend new hope to the most vulnerable of patients—extremely premature babies. Designed to simulate a natural womb, the device is hoped to augment survival rates and outcomes for premature babies born earlier than 28 weeks gestation—a fairly common occurrence with significant risks involved.
This ambitious endeavor isn't solely a CHOP undertaking. In a critical partnership, CHOP has teamed with startup Vitara Biomedical which has secured a staggering $100 million fund to nurture the development of EXTEND. With a pivotal meeting arranged by the FDA on the horizon, where regulatory and ethical considerations ...and potential hurdles, will be scrutinized, the focus on artificial-womb technology is globally significant.
Complementary developments are reported around the globe, with similar devices being manufactured in Spain, Japan, Australia, Singapore, and the Netherlands. These devices, inclusive of QUOP's EXTEND, strive to provide oxygen and extract carbon dioxide, mimicking the role of a mechanical ventilator but without its known risk of causing damage to the delicate, developing lungs of prematurely born infants. In essence, these artificial-womb devices replace a harsh mechanical world with a simulated natural one, by placing the premature neonates in a Biobag, filled with an electrolyte-rich, life-sustaining fluid designed to mimic amniotic fluid.
Yet, this leap in medical technology does not come without criticisms and ethical concerns. Certain voices in the research community advocate for a shift in focus towards improving pregnancy support or refining standard techniques for preterm critical care. They argue that such endeavours could possibly reduce the need for such a sophisticated--and controversial--intervention.
Another sensitive issue is the ethico-legal implications associated with turbo-expanding the limits of fetal viability and the repercussions on reproductive rights. The CHOP team has even proposed to redefine the prematurely born occupants of EXTEND as "fetal neonates" or "fetonates".
Even with the regulatory green signal, numerous questions remain unanswered with respect to realistic timeframe, robustness of data required to justify proceeding with the human trials, and the inherent challenge of transitioning from animal to human trials.
Despite these concerns, proponents stalwartly advocate for advancement in the face of adversity. Their argument? That the implementation of the EXTEND technology is not a "nice-to-have"; it's an "urgent-to-have" for treating extremely premature babies when other measures end in failure. As we step into the future, the waiting game begins—to see whether the CHOP's EXTEND will stretch beyond the theoretical realm and become a tangible beacon of hope for the smallest and most vulnerable among us.