Xenografting: Ethical issues

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 18-24

  Hughes, Jonathan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Animal welfare; Xenograft; Xenotransplantation

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL WELFARE; HUMAN; INFECTION RISK; MEDICAL ETHICS; NONHUMAN; REVIEW; XENOGRAFT;

EID: 0031929791     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.24.1.18     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Animal-to-human transplants: the ethics of xenotransplantation. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1996:27.
2. Costing xenotransplantation. Bulletin of Medical Ethics 1996; Mar:3.
3. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Animal-to-human transplants: the ethics of xenotransplantation. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1996.
4. Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation. Animal tissue into humans: a report by the Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation. London: Stationery Office, 1997.
5. Mill JS. Three essays on religion. London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1904:15.
6. Norman R. Interfering with nature. Journal of Applied Philosophy 1996;13.1:1-11.
7. See for example Goodin RE. Green political theory. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.
8. See reference 3:§9.12. See also reference 4:§7.14 for a more general comment on the psychological and social impact of xenotransplantation on the recipient.
9. See reference 3:§§7.23, 7.25; reference 4:§7.7.
10. See reference 3:§§7.30, 7.31; reference 4:§7.15.
11. Perhaps for this reason the Department of Health report holds back from endorsing such a restriction. Its view appears to be that any trial conducted, considered as a whole, must offer the prospect of therapeutic benefit to patients, while leaving open the possibility that those trials may include volunteer participants in whose individual cases benefit is unlikely. See reference 4:§§7.5, 7.6.
12. See reference 3:§6.14.
13. In the words of the Nuffield report: "It is not possible to predict or quantify this risk but, in the worst case, the consequences could be far-reaching and difficult to control". Reference 3:§6.20.
14. See reference 3:§6.21.
15. See reference 3:§6.23.
16. See reference 3:§6.30.
17. See reference 3:§6.36.
18. See reference 4:§4.54.
19. See reference 4:§4.55.
20. See reference 4:§§4.62, 4.63.
21. See reference 4:§§4.68, 4.63.
22. See reference 3:§4.42. Similar statements can be found in reference 4:§§4.28-4.30. Both reports, however, approve the use of small numbers of primates as recipients of organs from non-primate animals during research into xenotransplantation.
23. The best-known proponent of this argument as an objection to vivisection and other uses of animals is Peter Singer. See, for example, Singer P. Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993:65-8.
24. Frey R G. Medicine, animal experimentation, and the moral problem of unfortunate humans. Social Philosophy and Policy 1996; 13.2:181-211.
25. This could take the form either of a redefinition of death, or a dropping of the requirement that patients be dead before removal of organs in favour of the requirement that they have permanently lost consciousness. The latter is recommended in Singer P. Rethinking life and death. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.