Challenging the 'Born Alive' Threshold: Fetal Surgery, Artificial Wombs, and the English Approach to Legal Personhood.

English law is unambiguous that legal personality, and with it all legal rights and protections, is assigned at birth. This rule is regarded as a bright line that is easily and consistently applied. The time has come, however, for the rule to be revisited. This article demonstrates that advances in fetal surgery and (anticipated) artificial wombs do not marry with traditional conceptions of birth and being alive in law. These technologies introduce the possibility of ex utero gestation, and/or temporary existence ex utero, and consequently developing human beings that are novel to the law. Importantly, therefore, the concepts of birth and born alive no longer distinguish between human beings deserving of legal protection in the way originally intended. Thus, there is a need for reform, for a new approach to determining the legal significance of birth and what being legally alive actually encompasses. Investigating the law of birth is of crucial importance, because of the implications of affording or denying the subjects of new reproductive technologies rights and protections. A determination of the legal status of the subject of fetal surgery or an artificial womb will determine what can and cannot be done to each entity. Moreover, the status afforded to these entities will drastically impact on the freedoms of pregnant women.

Attitudes of paediatric and obstetric specialists towards prenatal surgery for lethal and non-lethal conditions.

BACKGROUND: While prenatal surgery historically was performed exclusively for lethal conditions, today intrauterine surgery is also performed to decrease postnatal disabilities for non-lethal conditions. We sought to describe physicians' attitudes about prenatal surgery for lethal and non-lethal conditions and to elucidate characteristics associated with these attitudes. METHODS: Survey of 1200 paediatric surgeons, neonatologists and maternal-fetal medicine specialists (MFMs). RESULTS: Of 1176 eligible physicians, 670 (57%) responded (range by specialty, 54%-60%). In the setting of a lethal condition for which prenatal surgery would likely result in the child surviving with a severe disability, most respondents either disagreed (59%) or strongly disagreed (19%) that they would recommend the surgery. Male physicians were twice as likely to recommend surgery for the lethal condition, as were physicians who believe that abortion is morally wrong (OR 1.75; 95%CI 1.0 to 3.05). Older physicians were less likely to recommend surgery (OR 0.57; 95%CI 0.36 to 0.88). For non-lethal conditions, most respondents agreed (66% somewhat, 4% strongly) that they would recommend prenatal surgery, even if the surgery increases the risk of prematurity or fetal death. Compared with MFMs, surgeons were less likely to recommend such surgery, as were physicians not affiliated with a fetal centre, and physicians who were religious (ORs range from 0.45 to 0.64). CONCLUSION: Physician's attitudes about prenatal surgery relate to physicians' beliefs about disability as well as demographic, cultural and religious characteristics. Given the variety of views, parents are likely to receive different recommendations from their doctors about the preferable treatment choice.

Physician views regarding the benefits and burdens of prenatal surgery for myelomeningocele.

OBJECTIVE: Examine how pediatric and obstetrical subspecialists view benefits and burdens of prenatal myelomeningocele (MMC) closure. STUDY DESIGN: Mail survey of 1200 neonatologists, pediatric surgeons and maternal-fetal medicine specialists (MFMs). RESULTS: Of 1176 eligible physicians, 670 (57%) responded. Most respondents disagreed (68%, 11% strongly) that open fetal surgery places an unacceptable burden on women and their families. Most agreed (65%, 10% strongly) that denying the benefits of open maternal-fetal surgery is unfair to the future child. Most (94%) would recommend prenatal fetoscopic over open or postnatal MMC closure for a hypothetical fetoscopic technique that had similar shunt rates (40%) but decreased maternal morbidity. When the hypothetical shunt rate for fetoscopy was increased to 60%, physicians were split (49% fetoscopy versus 45% open). Views about burdens and fairness correlated with the likelihood of recommending postnatal or fetoscopic over open closure. CONCLUSION: Individual and specialty-specific values may influence recommendations about prenatal surgery.

Is intrauterine surgery justified? Report from the working group on ultrasound in obstetrics of the World Association of Perinatal Medicine (WAPM).

Fetal surgery involves a large number of heterogeneous interventions that vary from simple and settled procedures to very sophisticated or still-in-development approaches. The overarching goal of fetal interventions is clear: to improve the health of children by intervening before birth to correct or treat prenatally diagnosed abnormalities. This article provides an overview of fetal interventions, ethical approaches in fetal surgery, and benefits obtained from antenatal surgeries.

When referring physicians and researchers disagree on equipoise: the TOTAL trial experience.

OBJECTIVE: In this article, we reflect on whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are adequate for the clinical evaluation of maternal-fetal surgery for congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH), focusing on the role of patients' preferences in the setting up of research protocols, on the requirement of equipoise and on the concept of therapeutic misconception (TM). METHOD: We describe the conception and setting up of the tracheal occlusion (TO) to accelerate lung growth trial and analyze the ethical dilemmas faced by the research team during that time. RESULTS: Depending on the view adopted regarding the scope of equipoise, there are two ways of dealing with patient's preferences concerning fetoscopic endoluminal TO and expectant management during pregnancy for CDH. CONCLUSION: The solution adopted for fetoscopic endoluminal tracheal occlusion (FETO) is justified by the extended period of time it has been available to patients before the start of the RCT. Strong patient and referring physician preferences do not entail a right to have FETO, since it is a procedure of yet unproven efficacy and safety. In the future, to avoid the dilemmas posed by the TM and in name of the right of future generations of patients to have access to treatment of proven safety and efficacy, researchers must be able to plan RCT in due time.