Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37932017›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2024

Artificial placentas, pregnancy loss and loss-sensitive care.

Elizabeth Chloe Romanis, Victoria Adkins

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Artificial womb technology; a scoping review of ethical considerations.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Elizabeth Chloe RomanisCentre for Ethics and Law in the Life Sciences, Durham Law School, Durham University, Durham, UK elizabeth.c.romanis@durham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8774-4015
Victoria AdkinsSchool of Law and Criminology, University of Greenwich, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7614-0048

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we explore how the prospect of artificial placenta technology (nearing clinical trials in human subjects) should encourage further consideration of the loss experienced by individuals when their pregnancy ends unexpectedly. Discussions of pregnancy loss are intertwined with procreative loss, whereby the gestated entity has died when the pregnancy ends. However, we demonstrate how pregnancy loss can and does exist separate to procreative loss in circumstances where the gestated entity survives the premature ending of the pregnancy. In outlining the value that can be attached to pregnancy beyond fetal-centric narratives, we illustrate how pregnancy loss, separate to procreative loss, can be experienced. This loss has already been recognised among parents who have experienced an unexpected early ending of their pregnancy, resulting in their child being cared for in neonatal intensive care unit. Artificial placentas, however, may exacerbate these feelings and make pregnancy loss (without procreative loss) more visible. We argue that pregnancy is an embodied state in which gestation is facilitated by the body but gestation itself should be recognised as a process-and one that could be separable from pregnancy. In demarcating the two, we explore the different ways in which pregnancy loss can be understood. Our objective in this paper goes beyond contributing to our philosophical understanding of pregnancy towards practical-orientated conclusions regarding the care pathways surrounding the artificial placenta. We make recommendations including the need for counselling and careful consideration of the language used when an artificial placenta is used.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousPlacentaArtificial OrgansFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyEthicsInfant- NewbornObstetricsReproductive Medicine

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.