Algunos dilemas éticos presentes y futuros ante los avances en fecundación in vitro

https://doi.org/10.18294/sc.2023.4462

Publicado 16 noviembre 2023 Open Access


Marta Reguera Cabezas Bióloga, Magíster en Genética y Reproducción Humana Asistida, Unidad de Reproducción Asistida, miembro del Comité de Ética Asistencial, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Cantabria, España.




Vistas de resumen
292
Cargando métricas ...


Palabras clave:

Fecundación in Vitro, Edición Genética, Ectogénesis, Técnicas Reproductivas, Bioética


Resumen


El creciente campo de la reproducción humana asistida ha alcanzado hitos inimaginables. Su continuo desarrollo y las innovaciones que genera, en ocasiones, plantean dilemas tanto éticos como jurídicos. El presente ensayo trata de exponer los cambios progresivos que se están viviendo en el ámbito del origen de la vida debido al desarrollo de nuevas opciones y estrategias en reproducción humana asistida. En primer lugar, se realiza una reflexión interdisciplinar desde la ciencia, la ética y el derecho, sobre la naturaleza humana y los cambios a los que la sociedad se enfrenta, en particular, desde la perspectiva española. En segundo lugar, recoge una breve aproximación en torno a las técnicas biomédicas presentes o futuras en el campo de la reproducción humana. Concluye sobre la necesidad de reflexionar ante el vertiginoso avance de la ciencia en materia de reproducción humana asistida.


Referencias bibliográficas


1. Hall SS. Modificar nuestra herencia. Investigación y Ciencia. 2016;(482):52-60.

2. Singer P. De compras por el supermercado genético. Isegoría. 2002;(27):19-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3989/isegoria.2002.i27.552

3. Savulescu J. Beneficencia procreativa: por qué debemos seleccionar los mejores niños. En: ¿Decisiones peligrosas? Una bioética desafiante. Madrid: Tecnos; 2012.

4. Harris J. The value of life: an introduction to medical ethics. London: Routledge; 2001.

5. Torres Quiroga MA. Maternidad y gestación en venta: fabricar bebés en la era neoliberal. Barcelona: Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona; 2019.

6. European Parliament. Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA). Human Enhancement [Internet]. 2009 [citado 25 mar 2023]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/mrxh8r3s.

7. Machin R, Plaza CA. The Latin Network of Researchers in Reproductive Biotechnologies: scientific cooperation and social debate in a global era. JBRA Assisted Reproduction. 2023;27(2):339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20230003

8. Cortina A, Serra MÀ. Humanidad infinita: Desafíos éticos de las tecnologías emergentes. Madrid: Ediciones Internacionales Universitarias; 2016.

9. Gracia D. Bioética mínima. España: TRIACASTELA; 2019. p. 37.

10. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Worldwide decline of IVF birth rates and its probable causes. Human Reproduction Open. 2019;2019(3):1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoz017

11. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. What’s on the horizon for the Nuffield Council on Bioethics? [Internet]. 2023 [citado 9 nov 2023]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/2bupcv8z.

12. Singer P, Wells D. In vitro fertilisation: the major issues. Journal of Medical Ethics. 1983;9(4):192-195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.9.4.192

13. Powell K. What’s next for lab-grown human embryos? Nature. 2021;597:22-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02343-7

14. Esping-Andersen G, Arpino B, Baizán P, Bellani D, Castro-Martín T, Creighton MJ, et al. El déficit de natalidad en Europa. Barcelona: Fundación “la Caixa”; 2013.

15. Pérez Milán F, Weinig Mantorras R, Romeu Sarrió AR, Coroleu Lletget B, (eds,). Libro Blanco Sociosanitario de la Infertilidad en España. Madrid: Imago Concept & Image Development SL; 2011

16. Casabona R, Jiménez N, Malanda R, (eds,). Reproducción humana. En: Idiakez AI. Manual de Bioderecho. Madrid: Dykinson; 2022. p. 223-248.

17. Rubio Castro AM. Sujeto, cuerpo y mercado: Una relación compleja. En: Casado M, (ed,). De la solidad al mercado: el cuerpo humano y el comercio biotecnológico. Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona; 2016. p. 65-96.

18. Rivas AM. Incentivos sociales/laborales a la vitrificación de óvulos: ¿Mayor autonomía de las mujeres? Revista Jurídica Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. 2017;(35):291-306.

19. von Schondorf-Gleicher A, Mochizuki L, Orvieto R, Patrizio P, Caplan AS, Gleicher N. Revisiting selected ethical aspects of current clinical in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genethics. 2022;39:591-604. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02439-7

20. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Albertini DF, Barad DH. Improvements in IVF in women of advanced age. Journal of Endocrinology. 2016;230(1):1-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1530/JOE-16-0105

21. Asplund K. Assisterad befruktning - etiska aspekter. Estocolmo; Smer rapport 2013:1.

22. Alamillos Guardiola M. La maternidad tardía: Expresión contemporánea del patriarcado occidental. Revista de Antropología Experimental. 2016;(16):213-221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17561/rae.v0i16.2241

23. Hammarberg K, Kirkman M, Pritchard N, Hickey M, Peate M, McBain J, et al. Reproductive experiences of women who cryopreserved oocytes for non-medical reasons. Human Reproduction. 2017;32(3):575-581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew342

24. Goldman KN. Elective oocyte cryopreservation: an ounce of prevention? Fertility and Sterility. 2018;109(6):1014-1015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.023

25. Asplund K. Use of in vitro fertilization-ethical issues. Upsala Journal of Medical Science. 2020;125(2):192-199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03009734.2019.1684405

26. Lima NS, Martínez G. Ethical dilemmas posed by surplus frozen embryos in Argentinean fertility centers [Internet]. 2021 [citado 12 oct 2023]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/466pbfax.

27. Caplan AL, Patrizio P. The beginning of the end of the embryo wars. The Lancet. 2009;373(9669):1074-1075. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60638-3

28. Rivas A, Lores F, Jociles I. El anonimato y el altruismo en la donación de gametos: la producción de biocapital en la industria reproductiva. Política y Sociedad. 2019;56(3):623-644. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5209/poso.60564

29. Zegers-Hochschild F, Crosby JA, Salas SR. Fundamentos biomédicos y éticos de la criopreservación de embriones. Revista Médica de Chile. 2014;142(7):896-902. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872014000700010

30. Kingsberg SA, Applegarth LD, Janata JW. Embryo donation programs and policies in North America: survey results and implications for health and mental health professionals. Fertility and Sterility. 2000;73(2):215-220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00506-3

31. Gough F. Ireland and the frozen embryo:a slight thawing? Medical Law Review. 2010;18(2):239-247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwq007

32. Lima NS, Botti G, Lancuba S, Martínez AG. Abandoned frozen embryos in Argentina: a committee opinion. JBRA Assisted Reproduction. 2019;23(2):165-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20180085

33. Reguera Cabezas M, Cayón J. Deseados pero abandonados: el incierto destino de los embriones criopreservados. Revista de Bioética y Derecho. 2021;53:139-157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1344/rbd2021.53.36977

34. Gosálbez PE, Fernández FR. Dilemas bioéticos y jurídicos de la reproducción asistida en la sociedad actual en España. Revista Latinoamericana Bioética. 2018;18(34-1):104-135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18359/rlbi.3160

35. Department of Health & Social Security. Report of the Committee of Inquiry in to Human Fertilisation and Embryology: HM Stationery Office [Internet]. 1984 [citado 12 oct 2023]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/4sppr2z4.

36. Hyun I, Wilkerson A, Johnston J. Embryology policy: Revisit the 14-day rule. Nature. 2016;533:169-171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/533169a

37. Clark AT, Brivanlou A, Fu J, Kato K, Mathews D, Niakan KK, et al. Human embryo research, stem cell-derived embryo models and in vitro gametogenesis: Considerations leading to the revised ISSCR guidelines. Stem Cell Report. 2021;16(6):1416-1424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2021.05.008

38. McCully S. The time has come to extend the 14-day limit. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2021;47(12):e66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106406

39. Redondo-García A. La regla de los 14 días a debate: un análisis crítico desde la bioética. Revista de Bioética y Derecho. 2022;(54):103-119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1344/rbd2021.54.35556

40. Harris J. It’s time to extend the 14-day limit for embryo research. The Guardian [Internet]. 2016 [citado 1 abr 2023]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/yjk2kzyd.

41. Ball P. Cómo crear un ser humano. Madrid: Turner Publicaciones; 2020.

42. Lovell-Badge R, Anthony E, Barker RA, Bubela T, Brivanlou AH, Carpenter M, et al. ISSCR Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation: The 2021 update. Stem Cell Reports. 2021;16(6):1398-1408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2021.05.012

43. Gracia D. Ética y Medicina: Problemas éticos del origen de la vida [Internet]. 1990 [citado 25 de marzo de 2023]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/2n45ssvy.

44. Douglas T, Savulescu J. Destroying unwanted embryos in research: Talking Point on morality and human embryo research. EMBO Reports. 2009;10(4):307-312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2009.54

45. Morgan L. Icons of life: a cultural history of human embryos. Berkeley, California: Editorial de la Universidad de California; 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520260436.001.0001

46. Germán Zurriaráin R. El utilitarismo ético en la investigación biomédica con embriones humanos. Persona Bioética. 2008;12(1):16-28.

47. Ledford H. CRISPR fixes disease gene in viable human embryos. Nature. 2017;548(7665):13-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2017.22382

48. Cressey D, Abbott A, Ledford H. UK scientists apply for licence to edit genes in human embryos. Nature [Internet]. 2015 [citado 2 sep 2022]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/mwep2mhn. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.18394

49. Savatier P, David L, Vos JD, Yates F, Tajbakhsh S, Martinat C. Des embryons chimères et des pseudo-embryons comme alternatives pour la recherche sur l’embryon humain. Médecine, Sciences. 2021;37:799-801. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2021124

50. Nicolas P, Etoc F, Brivanlou AH. The ethics of human-embryoids model: a call for consistency. Journal of Molecular Medicine. 2021;99:569-579. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00109-021-02053-7

51. Shahbazi MN, Siggia ED, Zernicka-Goetz M. Self-organization of stem cells into embryos: A window on early mammalian development. Science. 2019;364(6444):948-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0164

52. Hyun I, Munsie M, Pera MF, Rivron NC, Rossant J. Toward Guidelines for Research on Human Embryo Models Formed from Stem Cells. Stem Cell Reports. 2020;14(2):169-174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2019.12.008

53. Sawai T, Minakawa T, Pugh J, Akatsuka K, Yamashita JK, Fujita M. The moral status of human embryo-like structures: potentiality matters?: The moral status of human synthetic embryos. EMBO Reports. 2020;21(8):e50984. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202050984

54. Chan S. How and Why to Replace the 14-Day Rule. Curr Stem Cell Rep. 2018;4(3):228-234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40778-018-0135-7

55. Appleby JB, Bredenoord AL. Should the 14-day rule for embryo research become the 28-day rule? EMBO Molecular Medicine. 2018;10(9):e9437. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15252/emmm.201809437

56. Braga DPAF, Setti AS, Borges E. Ethics and IVF add-ons: We need to talk about it. JBRA Assisted Reproduction. 2022;26(3):371-373. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20220030

57. Armstrong S, Atkinson M, MacKenzie J, Pacey A, Farquhar C. Add-ons in the laboratory: hopeful, but not always helpful. Fertility and Sterility. 2019;112(6):994-999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.10.031

58. Wilkinson J, Malpas P, Hammarberg K, Mahoney Tsigdinos P, Lensen S, Jackson E, et al. Do à la carte menus serve infertility patients? The ethics and regulation of in vitro fertility add-ons. Fertility and Sterility. 2019;112(6):973-977. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.09.028

59. Hörbst V. ‘You cannot do IVF in Africa as in Europe’: the making of IVF in Mali and Uganda. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online. 2016;2:108-115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.07.003

60. Simpson B. IVF in Sri Lanka: A concise history of regulatory impasse. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online. 2016;2:8-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.02.003

61. Nardo LG, El-Toukhy T, Stewart J, Balen AH, Potdar N. British Fertility Society Policy and Practice Committee: adjuvants in IVF: evidence for good clinical practice. Human Fertility (Cambridge, England). 2015;18(1):2-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2015.985454

62. Human Fertilisation & Embriology Authority. HFEA statement on fertility treatment ‘add-ons’ [Internet]. 2019 [citado 2 abril 2023]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/3ndvfkf9.

63. Human Fertilisation & Embriology Authority. The responsible use of treatment add-ons in fertility services: a consensus statement [Internet]. 2019. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/rn8me8jv.

64. Human Fertilisation & Embriology Authority. Treatment add-ons with limited evidence [Internet]. 2019 [citado 2 abr 2023]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/42cbwju7.

65. Harper J, Magli MC, Lundin K, Barratt CLR, Brison D. When and how should new technology be introduced into the IVF laboratory? Human Reproduction (Oxford, England). 2012;27(2):303-313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der414

66. Sfakianoudis K, Simopoulou M, Grigoriadis S, Pantou A, Tsioulou P, Maziotis E, et al. Reactivating Ovarian Function through Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma Intraovarian Infusion: Pilot Data on Premature Ovarian Insufficiency, Perimenopausal, Menopausal, and Poor Responder Women. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2020;9(6):1809. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061809

67. Provoost V, Tilleman K, D’Angelo A, De Sutter P, de Wert G, Nelen W, et al. Beyond the dichotomy: a tool for distinguishing between experimental, innovative and established treatment. Human Reproduction (Oxfordm England). 2014;29(3):413-417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det463

68. Madeira JL, Coyne K, Jaeger AS, Parry JP, Lindheim SR. Inform and consent: more than just “sign here”. Fertility and Sterility. 2017;108(1):40-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.022

69. Dondorp W, de Wert G. Innovative reproductive technologies: risks and responsibilities. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England). 2011;26(7):1604-1608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der112

70. Zemyarska MS. Is it ethical to provide IVF add-ons when there is no evidence of a benefit if the patient requests it? Journal of Medical Ethics. 2019;45(5):346-350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-104983

71. Lensen S, Hammarberg K, Polyakov A, Wilkinson J, Whyte S, Peate M, et al. How common is add-on use and how do patients decide whether to use them? A national survey of IVF patients. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England). 21;36(7):1854-1861. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deab098

72. Brännström M, Johannesson L, Dahm-Kähler P, Enskog A, Mölne J, Kvarnström N, et al. First clinical uterus transplantation trial: a six-month report. Fertility and Sterility. 2014;101(5):1228-1236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.02.024

73. Williams NJ, Scott R, Wilkinson S. The ethics of uterus transplantation. Bioethics. 2018;32(8):478-480. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12530

74. Casabona RCM. La persona entre la biotecnología, la bioética y el Derecho: el paradigma de los trasplantes de órganos. Revista de Derecho y Genoma Humano. 2021;(55):15-53.

75. Del Rio A, Negro F, Piersanti V, Tini A. Uterus transplant update: innovative fertility solutions and the widening horizons of bioengineering. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Science. 2021;25(9):3405-3410.

76. Ronchi UF, Napoletano G. Uterus Transplantation and the redefinition of core bioethics precepts. Acta Bio-Medica. 2021;92(5):e2021435.

77. Crespo AA, Estrems JE, Bueno LP, Redondo MJQ, García CD. El trasplante de útero: una puerta abierta a la posibilidad de tener hijos. Revista Jurídica Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. 2017;(35):215-233.

78. O’Donovan L. Pushing the boundaries: Uterine transplantation and the limits of reproductive autonomy. Bioethics. 2018;32(8):489-498. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12531

79. Thomson JA, Itskovitz-Eldor J, Shapiro SS, Waknitz MA, Swiergiel JJ, Marshall VS, et al. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science. 1998;282(5391):1145-1147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5391.1145

80. Cheng H, Shang D, Zhou R. Germline stem cells in human. Signal transduction and targeted theraphy. 2022;7:345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-022-01197-3

81. Bhartiya D, Hinduja I, Patel H, Bhilawadikar R. Making gametes from pluripotent stem cells – a promising role for very small embryonic-like stem cells. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology RBE. 2014;12:114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-12-114

82. Hayashi K, Ohta H, Kurimoto K, Aramaki S, Saitou M. Reconstitution of the mouse germ cell specification pathway in culture by pluripotent stem cells. Cell. 2011;146(4):519-532. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.06.052

83. Hayashi K, Saitou M. Generation of eggs from mouse embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature Protocols. 2013;8(8):1513-1524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2013.090

84. Hermann BP, Sukhwani M, Winkler F, Pascarella JN, Peters KA, Sheng Y, et al. Spermatogonial stem cell transplantation into rhesus testes regenerates spermatogenesis producing functional sperm. Cell Stem Cell. 2012;11(5):715-726. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2012.07.017

85. Johnson J, Canning J, Kaneko T, Pru JK, Tilly JL. Germline stem cells and follicular renewal in the postnatal mammalian ovary. Nature. 2004;428(6979):145-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02316

86. White YAR, Woods DC, Takai Y, Ishihara O, Seki H, Tilly JL. Oocyte formation by mitotically active germ cells purified from ovaries of reproductive-age women. Nature Medicine. 2012;18(3):413-421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.2669

87. Ramathal C, Durruthy-Durruthy J, Sukhwani M, Arakaki JE, Turek PJ, Orwig KE, et al. Fate of iPSCs Derived from Azoospermic and Fertile Men following Xenotransplantation to Murine Seminiferous Tubules. Cell Reports. 2014;7(4):1284-1297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.03.067

88. Casado M. En torno a células madre, pre-embriones y pseudo-embriones: el impacto normativo de los Documentos del Observatorio de Bioética y Derecho de la UB. Revista Bioética y Derecho. 2010;(19):17-32.

89. Luo Y, Yu Y. Research Advances in Gametogenesis and Embryogenesis Using Pluripotent Stem Cells. Frontiers in cell and developmental biology. 2022;9:801468. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2021.801468

90. Hayashi K, Ogushi S, Kurimoto K, Shimamoto S, Ohta H, Saitou M. Offspring from oocytes derived from in vitro primordial germ cell-like cells in mice. Science. 2012;338(6109):971-975. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1226889

91. Petric P, Vrtacnik-Bokal E, Stimpfel M. Is It Possible to Treat Infertility with Stem Cells? Reproduction Science. 2021;28(6):1733-1745. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-021-00566-7

92. Adashi EY, Cohen IG, Hanna JH, Surani AM, Hayashi K. Stem Cell-Derived Human Gametes: The Public Engagement Imperative. Trends in molecular medicine. 2019;25(3):165-167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2019.01.005

93. Montoliu L. Editando genes: recorta, pega y colorea. 3a ed. Next Door Publishers; 2021.

94. Lima NS. CRISPR/Cas9: reflexiones bioéticas sobre las modificacion es genómicas. Journal of Basic and Applied Genetics. 2018;29(1):9-15.

95. Vidalis T. Genome Editing in Human Gametes and Embryos: The Legal Dimension in Europe. BioTech. 2022;12(1):1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/biotech12010001

96. Savulescu J, Pugh J, Douglas T, Gyngell C. The moral imperative to continue gene editing research on human embryos. Protein & cell. 2015;6(7):476-479. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13238-015-0184-y

97. Bekaert B, Boel A, Cosemans G, De Witte L, Menten B, Heindryckx B. CRISPR/Cas gene editing in the human germline. Seminars in cell and developmental biology. 2022;131:93-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2022.03.012

98. Li Y, Kang XJ, Pang JKS, Soh BS, Yu Y, Fan Y. Human germline editing: Insights to future clinical treatment of diseases. Protein & cell. 2019;10(7):470-475. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13238-018-0594-8

99. Savulescu J. Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings. Gazeta de Antropología. 2016;32(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.43310

100. Labude MK, Xafis V, Lai PS, Mills C. Vulnerability and the Ethics of Human Germline Genome Editing. The CRISPR journal. 2022;5(3):358-363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2021.0053

101. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Genome editing and human reproduction: social and ethical issues [Internet]. 2018 [citado 10 sep 2022]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/7sz538dx.

102. Alghrani A. Yes, uterus transplants should be publicly funded!’. Journal of medical ethics. 2016;42(9):566-567. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-103231

103. Schultz JH. Development of Ectogenesis: How Will Artificial Wombs Affect the Legal Status of a Fetus or Embryo. Chicago-Kent Law Review. 2009;84(3):877.

104. Romanis EC. Artificial Womb Technology and the Choice to Gestate Ex Utero: Is Partial Ectogenesis the Business of the Criminal Law? Medicine Law Review. 2020;28(2):342-374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwz037

105. Bulletti C, Palagiano A, Pace M, Cerni A, Borini A, Ziegler D. The Artificial Womb. Annals of the New Yorj Academy of Science. 2011;1221:124-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.05999.x

106. Davis N. Artificial womb: Dutch researchers given €2.9m to develop prototype. The Guardian [Internet]. 2019 [citado 2 abr 2023]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/bdhhmnba.

107. Welin S. Reproductive ectogenesis: The third era of human reproduction and some moral consequences. Science and engineering ethics. 2004;10:615-626. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-004-0042-4

108. Rosen C. Why Not Artificial Wombs? [Internet]. The New Atlantis. [citado 2 abr 2023]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/366syc72.

109. Rifkin J. The end of pregnancy. The Guardian [Internet]. 2002 [citado 2 abr 2023]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/35mft7vt.

110. Solerte ML. Artificial uterus -research background to improve survival and outcome of extremely low birth weight newborns. Journal of gynecology research and obstetric. 2020;6(3):67-71.

111. Coutinho D. O “futuro” da tecnologia reprodutiva: o útero artificial. 5º Congresso Internacional Direito na Lusofonia: Direito e novas tecnologias. Portugal; Universidade do Minho-Escola de Direito (ED); 2018.

112. Gelfand S, Shook JR, (eds). Ectogenesis. En: Singer P, Wells D. Ectogenesis: artificial womb technology and the future of human reproduction. Amsterdam, New York: Editions Rodopi BV; 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401203456

113. Salam R. The End of Pregnancy. Slate [Internet]. 2014 [citado 2 abr 2023]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/564a43b5.

114. Di Stefano L, Mills C, Watkins A, Wilkinson D. Ectogestation ethics: The implications of artificially extending gestation for viability, newborn resuscitation and abortion. Bioethics. 2020;34(4):371-384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12682

115. Kendal ES. Form, Function, Perception, and Reception: Visual Bioethics and the Artificial Womb. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine. 2022;95(3):371-377.

116. Kendal ES. Unique benefits of ectogenesis outweigh potential harms. Emerging topics in life science. 2019;3(6):719-722. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1042/ETLS20190112

117. Casabona R. El Convenio de Derechos Humanos y Biomedicina. Granada, España: Comares; 2002.

118. Kendal ES. The Perfect Womb: Promoting Equality of (Fetal) Opportunity. Journal of bioethical inquiry. 2017;14(2):185-194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-017-9775-z

119. Smajdor A. In Defense of Ectogenesis. Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics. 2012;21(1):90-103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180111000521

120. Romanis EC. Abortion & ‘artificial wombs’: would ‘artificial womb’ technology legally empower non-gestating genetic progenitors to participate in decisions about how to terminate pregnancy in England and Wales? J Law Biosci. 2021;8(1):lsab011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab011

121. Cohen IG. Artificial Wombs and Abortion Rights. The Hastings Center report. 2017;47(4):2-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.730

122. Izquierdo JM. Juan Luis Arsuaga: “Es pronto para desaparecer como especie”. El País [Internet]. 2015 [citado 25 mar 2023]. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/2urmua62.