The Strange Case of the Artificial Placenta

While most ethical reflection on new technology focuses on their disruptiveness, I will use the example of artificial placentas (APs) to discuss the opposite risk: Overblowing the potential disruptiveness of new health technologies. To do so, I will first explain why AP is regarded as disruptive and why it is not. Second, I will explain the risks of overblowing AP disruptiveness’s. Finally, I will discuss how to better manage AP challenges. AP is a technology meant to improve the survival and quality of life of preterm infants. Many regard the AP as a disruptive technology for three reasons: 1) AP will create a new moral entity, 2) AP is an innovative technology that might disrupt treatment of preterm, and 3) even lead to an artificial womb. Although challenging, AP will not be disruptive and framing it as such can be harmful. For example, it is technically impossible to derive an artificial womb from the AP. Insinuating that one will lead to the other might generate public’s rejection toward AP and halt or delay research, harming preterm infants who could benefit from the AP. Overemphasizing unlikely scenarios is also leading to overlook the more concrete and urgent ethical challenges concerning trial and implementation.