Animal Spare Parts? A Canadian Public Consultation on Xenotransplantation

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 579-591

  Einsiedel, Edna F ^a   Ross, Heather ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b TORONTO GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Citizen jury; Constructive technology assessment; Xenotransplantation and public participation; Xenotransplantation and public policy

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ANIMAL RIGHTS; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIOETHICS; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CANADA; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONSUMER; ETHICS; HEALTH CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PUBLIC HEALTH; RESEARCH ETHICS; XENOGRAFT;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; HEALTH CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH;

ANIMAL RIGHTS; ANIMALS; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIOETHICS; CANADA; CLINICAL TRIALS; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; TRANSPLANTATION, HETEROLOGOUS;

EID: 0036777488     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-002-0010-9     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Canadian Institute for Health Information (2002) Organ transplants in Canada. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb
2. Schliebs, D. (2001) A shortage of organs: can xenotransplantation fill the need? Helix, March, 7-10.
3. Cooper, D.K. and R.P. Lanza (2000) Xeno: the promise of transplanting animal organs into humans. Oxford University Press, New York.
4. Bach, F., J. Fishman, N. Daniels, J. Proimus, B. Anderson, C. Carpenter, L. Forrow, S. Robson, and H. Fineberg (1998) Uncertainty in xenotransplantation: individual benefit versus collective risk, Nature medicine 4; 141-144.
5. Onions, D.E. and C.J. Witt (2000) Xenotransplantation: an overview of microbial risks and potentials for risk management, Rev. Sci Tech Off. Int. Epiz. 19, 1: 289-301.
6. Patience, C., Y. Takeuchi, and R. Weiss (1997) Infection of human cells by an endogenous retrovirus of pigs. Nature medicine 3: 3, 282-286.
7. Daar, A. (1999) Animal-to-human organ transplants - a solution or a new problem?, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 77, I: 54-61.
8. Florencio, P.S. and T. Caulfield (1999) Xenotransplantation and public health: identifying the legal issues, Can. Journ. Pub. Health 90, 4: 233-236.
9. Singer, P. (1975) Animal liberation, Random House, New York.
10. UK Advisory Group on the ethics of xenotransplantation (1997) Animal tissue into humans. Norwich: Her Majesty's Stationery office.
11. Dixon, P. (1993) The genetic revolution, Kingsway America, New York.
12. Anonymous (1998) Alternative ways of meeting demand, Nature 391, January 22.
13. Bach, F., J. Fishman, N. Daniels, J. Proimus, B. Anderson, C. Carpenter, L. Forrow, S. Robson, and H. Fineberg. (1998) Letter to the editor. Nature Medicine, Feb. 1.
14. Council of Europe (1999) Recommendation 1399: Xenotransplantation. Strasbourg, France
15. Council of Europe (2000) Working Party on Xenotransplantation: Working Report. CDBI/CDSP-Xeno (2000) 12. July 12; OECD (1999). Xenotransplantation: international policy issues. Paris: OECD, 17.
16. Council of Europe (2000) Working Party on Xenotransplantation: Working Report. CDBI/CDSP-Xeno (2000) 12. July 12; OECD (1999). Xenotransplantation: international policy issues. Paris: OECD, 17.
17. Pinch, T. and W. Bijker (1987) The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other, in W. Bijker, T. Hughes, and T. Pinch (eds.) The social construction of technological systems, MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.
18. MacKenzie, D. and J. Wajcman (1985) The social shaping of technology. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK.
19. Schot, J. (1999) Constructive technology assessment comes of age: the birth of a new politics of technology, in: A. Jamison (ed.) Technology policy meets the public. PESTO papers II, Aalborg University, 207-232.
20. Joss, S. and J. Durant (1995) The UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology, Public Understanding of Science 4: 195-204.
21. Crosby, N. (1995) Citizens' juries: one solution for difficulty environmental questions, in: R. Renn, T. Webler and P. Wiedemann (eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation: evaluating models for environmental discourse, Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht.
22. Fishkin, J (1995) The voice of the people: public opinion and democracy, Yale University Press, New Haven, CN.
23. Stewart, J., E. Kendall and A. Coote (1994) Citizen juries. Institute for Public Policy Research, London.
24. Coote, A. and J. Lenaghan (1997) Citizens' juries: theory into practice, Institute for Public Policy Research, London.
25. Jefferson Center, Citizens' juries, www.jefferson-center.org/citizens_jury/
26. Health Canada (1999) Proposed Canadian Standard for Xenotransplantation. Ottawa: Therapeutic Products Program.
27. Health Canada (2000) Minister Rock announces launch of public involvement process on xenotransplantation. Press release. Ottawa, July 22.
28. Expert Working Group on Xenotransplantation (1999) Proposed Canadian Standard for Xenotransplantation, Health Canada, Ottawa.
29. Volpe, J. (1999). Organ and tissue donation and transplantation: a Canadian approach. Report of the Standing Committee on Health. Ottawa: House of Parliament.
30. Medlock, J. (2001) What's the verdict? Evaluating a Citizens' Jury on Xenotransplantation. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.
31. Canadian Public Health Association (2001) Animal-to-human transplantation: should Canada proceed? A public consultation on xenotransplantation, CPHA, Ottawa.
32. Fischer, F. (1990) Technocracy and the politics of expertise, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
33. Wynn, B. and S. Mayer (1993) How science fails the environment. New scientist, 5 June, 35.
34. Einsiedel, E.F. (In Preparation) Assessing Technology - constructively and democratically.
35. Feenberg, A. (2001) Questioning technology, Routledge, London.