Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2021 March 15

= March 15 =

Could transferring fetuses to artificial wombs genuinely be a replacement for the abortion pill?
In regards to the abortion debate, artificial wombs are sometimes brought up. But I'm simply wonder just how viable of an alternative they would actually be to the abortion pill for women who are already pregnant and want to end their pregnancies right now. After all, wouldn't any fetal extraction procedure–even a minimally invasive one–still be more dangerous and/or more invasive than a safe and non-invasive abortion pill is going to be? If so, and if one genuinely believes in an absolute right to bodily autonomy, what exactly would be the justification for forcing pregnant women who want to end their pregnancies right now to undergo a more dangerous and/or more invasive procedure–again, even a minimally invasive one–when there is a non-invasive and possibly safer alternative option available for these women in the form of the abortion pill? Futurist110 (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Artificial wombs are a lot further away than you might imagine. The womb during pregnancy is not (as you probably realise) just a passive container, it (being part of a very complex organism – the mother) carries out very many important functions that permit the successful development of the foetus: so sensitive is the match of uterine and foetal functioning that a significant number of natural pregnancies fail if it is not as good as it should be.
 * The social implication of artificial wombs has been explored in a number of science fiction works, including those of Lois McMaster Bujold in The Vorkosigan Saga, wherein a woman from the technologically advanced human culture of Beta Colony (where 'uterine replicators' are used for almost every pregnancy) emigrates to the more backward planet Barrayar, which is recovering from prolonged accidental isolation followed by an invasion and occupation by the advanced but uncaring Cetagandans that knocked back Barrayaran science and culture by several centuries-worth, and such replicators have only just become theoretically available – to the rich.
 * In our real future world, artificial wombs would only become a viable alternative to abortifecant treatments only if they did not cost significantly more (factoring in the costs of natural pregnancies which themselves are by no means risk free for the mother) and if willing adoptive parents (or satisfactory State institutions) could be found (or created and run) for every foetus thus brought to term that the natural parents could not afford to care for. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.80.5 (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You've pretty well answered your own questions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Proponents of (edit: right of) abortion are of the opinion that a foetus at a sufficiently early stage of development is not a human being and therefore killing it doesn't harm a human being. But moving it into an artificial womb may damage the foetus and if this damage persists until after birth, harm has been done to a human being. So from this point of view, unless the artificial womb technique is perfect, abortion by killing is the more ethical thing to do. Note that having a foetus with severe defects is one of the more widely accepted reasons for abortion. Of course, if you think that every sperm is sacred, then the artificial womb is always better than current abortion methods. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think misrepresent the position of most people who believe that the solution to unwanted pregnancies is not criminalizing abortion somehow makes them "proponents" of abortion. That kind of mischaracterization should not be done.  Please stop.  -- Jayron 32 11:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. I meant proponents of right of abortion, although I don't think we always have to be that wordy. PiusImpavidus (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In terms of sensitive subjects such as this, precision matters. -- Jayron 32 12:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A viable alternative to an artificial womb could be Interspecific pregnancy. Count Iblis (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Help reading old medical term from handwriting
I'm doing some family history, which has taken me to the death record of someone who died in the UK in the 1940s (in his 40s). I don't have the death certificate, just the entry in the register of deaths (which has a very summarised cause of death). An image of the relevant section is here (there isn't any more text for this field, and this is the best resolution the registrar service provides).

It looks like the primary cause of death is "chronic nephritis". But I'm struggling to understand the word below that; it might be "hyper???eisis". The nephritis article says it can cause hyperphosphatemia and hypertension, but it's neither of those (unless they're written using some contraction). I'd *guess* it is some condition related to nephritis. Can anyone make sense of that last word? Thank you. 80.189.195.174 (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks like "hyperfiesis" whatever that was. Also appears here in a Newfoundland 1943 death records page? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly hyperpiesis, see . Essentially it seems to be a synonym for hypertension. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. looking again that sixth letter could well be a "p" as it matches the "p" in nephritis". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC) p.s. hyperpiesia gets 1.14 million hits on Google search?
 * " [ Clifford Allbutt gave it] its most correct name of classical origin - hyperpiesis. Allbutt's term was preceded by Frank's (1911) "essentielle hypertonia," a little oddly translated as essential hypertension, by which name it is most commonly known" in or see our article History of hypertension, which tells the same tale. DuncanHill (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Google search hit counts are a random number; see WP:GYNOT. --Lambiam 12:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, today hyperpiesia gets 44,000 while hyperpiesis 268,000. Is there still a distinction between a high random number and a very low random number? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks all for your help. Decoding these documents has been, consistently, an interdisciplinary jigsaw. 80.189.195.174 (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Simultaneous thrombocytopenia and thrombosis after AstraZeneca vaccinations
What is the probability that out of 700,000 vaccinated people, 3 or more under the age of 50 would be affected by a simultaneous combination of thrombocytopenia and thrombosis, causing brain hemorrhage and lung embolism in the same patients within a week after getting the AstraZeneca vaccination, assuming that the vaccination did not cause the blood coagulation problems? Count Iblis (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Some rare forms of thrombosis may lead to thrombocytopenia, so one should definitely not multiply the probabilities of the separate conditions as if they are independent. --Lambiam 12:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)