To get to the uncomfortable, how does one ‘expect’ a premie, (which the article assumes) and how does one remove that premie from the mother's body, sac and all (it can't breathe any air, right?), without permanently traumatizing the mother's body? Seems a little more involved than a C-section.
What are the physiological, neurological and psychological effects on the child who's hooked up to tubes in a solution without the mother's hormones, “taste”, body resistance, heartbeat, normal movement and sounds?
Studies have shown that premies who do survive birth and are transferred to incubators for weeks or months, almost 30% display disorganized bonding, even tho the parent is completely bonded. Disorganized bonding is a symptom of abused infants, so what is going on with premies that causes this same disorganized bonding? The simplest answer seems to be detachment from the mother's body negatively affects neurological development that can last well into the teens.
A pregnant mother, of course, is willing to accept the challenge - she's going to want to save her baby and all measures should be taken to do that. I have nothing but the warmest compassion for those mothers because their path will not be an easy one in some cases.
But the article puts forth two concepts, one, that a child begin it's life in a bag so parents can 'make the decision' whether to allow growth to full term, and second, the concept that normal, healthy, bonding babies can be grown without the 'inconvenience of pregnancy'. Assisting premies seems almost an afterthought - oh yeah, we better mention this. One is just downright scary - I don't think The Almighty wants us shopping for babies like picking goldfish out at Walmart - get the biggest one - get the goldest one, get the one with the big spot on its tail, etc. And the other, 'convenience', is a fairytale that fails to account that humans are not sheep or cows or fish destined for the slaughterhouse in a year or two. Humans are very complex creatures as is the interaction on so many different levels between an unborn child and the mother.
some research: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130715070311.htm
Excellent comments.
There are a number of conditions which would lead one to expect a preemie: severe preeclampsia/HELLP syndrome, premature labor that does not respond to tocolytics, ruptured membranes with infection, severe placental abruption. Perhaps cancer in the mother discovered mid-pregnancy. Maternal diabetes difficult to control, with complications like retinopathy.
Yes, this is going to open up a brave new world, full of practical and moral questions. Technology always does, and we usually don’t recognize the scope of the changes until after they’ve occurred. We are not good at not using technology, nuclear and chemical weapons being a notable exception to date.
Compared to some possibilities (AI, genetic engineering. life extension) artificial wombs seem not quite as momentous. Of course they can be combined with the above.
I don’t think the surgery would be more involved than a C-section. Take baby from mother, connect umbilical cord to machine. Some precision work there which might prolong the C-section.
One hope is that the artificial womb will present a safer and less stressful environment than the NICU, and reduce the incidence of neurological impairments.
I imagine they would play recordings of the mother's heartbeat and mimic her movements and the parents could still come in and talk to the baby so it could know their voices. There's still a complex interplay of hormones and sensory input that the baby won't have, but again, it seems preferable to an incubator and ventilator.
They are born all the time.