Defining an appropriate ethical, social and regulatory framework for clinical xenotransplantation

Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 159-164

  Tallacchini, Mariachiara ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÀ CATTOLICA DEL SACRO CUORE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Animal welfare; Participatory procedures attitudes; Regulatory framework; Research on human subjects; Xenogeneic infections

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL RIGHTS; ANIMAL WELFARE; ETHICS; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; NONHUMAN; PATIENT SAFETY; PATIENT SELECTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLIC OPINION; REVIEW; SOCIAL ASPECT; XENOTRANSPLANTATION;

ANIMALS; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; PUBLIC OPINION; SAFETY; TRANSPLANTATION, HETEROLOGOUS;

EID: 40649101247     PISSN: 10872418     EISSN: 15317013     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOT.0b013e3282f7962f     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Bloom ET. National policies for xenotransplantation in the USA. Xenotransplantation 2007; 14:345-346.
2. Persson A. Research ethics and the development of medical biotechnology. Xenotransplantation 2006; 13:511-513. The paper highlights some ethical issue of private and commercial funding in xenotransplantation research.
3. Sykes M, Sandrin MS, Cozzi E. International cooperation on xenotransplantation. Nat Med 2004; 10:119.
4. Cozzi E, Sykes M. Xenotransplantation - current standards for clinical trials. Xenotransplantation 2007; 14:347.
5. Anderson M. Xenotransplantation: a bioethical evaluation. J Med Ethics 2006; 32:205-208.
6. Leonard H, Glantz JD. Ethical issues in xenotransplantation research with children. Xenotransplantation 2007; 14:355-356. This is an analysis of difficult ethical and legal issues raised by research on children.
7. Welin S, Sandrin MS. Some ethical problems in xenotransplantation: introductory remarks at Ethics Workshop. Xenotransplantation 2006; 13:500-501.
8. Cozzi E, Gianello P, Soulillou J-P. A new start for xenotransplantation research in the European Union. Xenotransplantation 2007; 14:196-197.
9. McLean S, Williamson L. The demise of UKXIRA and the regulation of solidorgan xenotransplantation in the UK. J Med Ethics 2007; 33:373-375. The authors illustrate, through an articulated and deep analysis, the flaws and risks connected to the weakening of the regulatory system in the UK after the demise in 2006 of the UK Xenotransplantation Regulatory Authority.
10. Weeramantry CG (editor): Xenotransplantation: the ethical and legal concerns. Sri Lanka: Weeramantry International Centre for Peace Education and Research; 2007.
11. Ravelingien A. Xenotransplantation: the ethical and legal concerns. Xenotransplantation 2007; 14:653-654.
12. Noël L. The proactive role of the WHO. Xenotransplantation 2007; 14:348-349.
13. Buhler L, Sgroi A, Sykes M, Noel L. International inventory of xenotransplantation practices in Humans. Xenotransplantation 2006; 13:482.
14. European Commission, Directorate-General Environment: Response to petitions on the revision of directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes and on banning experiments on nonhuman primates. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission; 2007. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/petitions_dir86_609. pdf. [Accessed 5 February 2007].
15. Pluhar EB. Experimentation on humans and nonhumans. Theor Med Bioeth 2006; 27:333-355.
16. Francione G. The use of nonhuman animals in biomedical research: necessity and justification. J Lay Med Ethics 2007; 35:241-248.
17. Vanderpool HY. Informed consent in clinical research. Xenotransplantation 2007; 14:353-354. This is a summary of the report produced by the US Department of Health and Human Services' Secretary's Advisory Committee on Xenotransplantation on informed consent.
18. Ellison T. Xenotransplantation: ethics and regulation. Xenotransplantation 2006; 13:505-509.
19. Sade RM. Reflections on emerging technologies at the centennial of organ transplantation. J Law Med Ethics 2007; 35:235-237.
20. Spillman M, Sade A, Robert M. Clinical trials of xenotransplantation: waiver of the right to withdraw from a clinical trial should be required. J Law Med Ethics 2007; 35:265-272.
21. Roux FA, Saï P, Deschamps J-Y. Some ethical issues regarding xenotransfusion. Xenotransplantation 2007; 14:217-221.
22. Fovargue S. 'Oh pick me, pick me': selecting participants for xenotransplant clinical trials. Med Law Rev 2007; 14:176-219. This is a critical reflection about the safety measures imposed on xenotransplanted patients, seen as an abrogation of the right to withdraw from a clinical trial.
23. Ravelingien A, Mortier F, Mortier E, et al. Proceeding with clinical trials of animal to human organ transplantation: a way out of the dilemma. J Med Ethics 2004; 30:92-98.
24. Ravelingien A, Braeckman J, Mortier F, et al. Authors' reply: a body at will. J Med Ethics 2006; 32:609-611. The authors make a proposal on allowing people in PVS to become subjects of research in xenotransplantations clinical trials.
25. Draper H. Research and patients in a permanent vegetative state. J Med Ethics 2006; 32:607.
26. Thompson J. Relatives of the living dead. J Med Ethics 2006; 32:607-608.
27. Curry S. Living patients in a permanent vegetative state as legitimate research subjects. J Med Ethics 2006; 32:606-607.
28. Levy N. Respecting rights ... to death. J Med Ethics 2006; 32:608-609.
29. Sparrow R. Right of the living dead? Consent to experimental surgery in the event of cortical death. J Med Ethics 2006; 32:601-605.
30. Truog R. Brain death: too flawed to endure, too ingrained to abandon. J Law Med Ethics 2007; 35:273-281.
31. Sykes M, Cozzi E. Xenotransplantation of pig islets into Mexican children: were the fundamental ethical requirements to proceed with such a study really met? Letter to the editor. Eur J Endocrinol 2006; 154:921-922.
32. Sykes M, Pierson RN III, O'Connell P, et al. Reply to 'Critics slam Russian trial to test pig pancreas for diabetes'. Nat Med 2007; 13:662-663.
33. McLean SAM, Williamson L. Xenotransplantation: law and ethics. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate; 2005.
34. Fovargue S. Xenotransplantation: law and ethics. Med Law Rev 2006; 14:434-442.
35. Ivinson AJ, Bach FH. The xenotransplantation question: public consultation is an important part of the answer. CMAJ 2002; 167:42-43.
36. George JF. Xenotransplantation: an ethical dilemma. Curr Opin Cardiol 2006; 21:138-141.
37. Burgess J, Stirling A, Clark J, et al. Deliberative mapping: a novel analyticdeliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions. Public Understand Sci 2007; 16:299-322. This paper presents the methodological development of Deliberative Mapping, a deliberative process for the involvement of citizens in science-based decisions, and specifically on the issue of xenotransplantation, which introduces some significant innovations to the field of participation.
38. Pearce CE, Thomas APM, Clements DAV. The ethics of xenotransplantation: a survey of student attitudes. Xenotransplantation 2006; 13:253.
39. Canova D, De Bona M, Rumiati R, et al. Understanding of and attitude to xenotransplantation among Italian university students: impact of a 3-yr university course. Xenotransplantation 2006; 13:264-271.
40. Ríos A, Ramírez P, Martínez L, Jarvis N, et al. British citizens in a regional community of southeastern Spain with a preclinical organ xenotransplantation program. A study of attitude toward xenotransplantation. Xenotransplantation 2007; 14:255-264.
41. Brown N. The visual politics of animals in bioscience: earmice in the public sphere. Xenotransplantation 2006; 13:501-505.
42. Ríos A, Conesa C, Ramírez P, et al. Hospital personnel faced with organ xenotransplantation: an attitudinal survey in a hospital with a preclinical liver xenotransplantation program. Xenotransplantation 2006; 13:447-454. The findings of this research show that, in an unexpected way, the general public is more in favour of xenotransplants than hospital personnel.
43. Ríos A, Ramírez P, Martínez-Alarcón L, Parrilla P. Level of acceptance of a clinical xenotransplantation program among personnel in solid organ transplant-related services. Xenotransplantation 2007; 14:271-272.
44. Idvall M. The xenotransplantation narratives of nine type 1 diabetic patients with renal failure. Xenotransplantation 2006; 13:509-511. The paper illustrates how a group of chronically ill patients perceives xenotransplants as an almost 'normal' therapy and their specific attitudes toward experimental risks.
45. Tallacchini M. Community and public participation in the risk assessment of experimental clinical trials. Xenotransplantation 2007; 14:356-358. This is an exploration of the new meanings and implications that so-called public participation may acquire to overcome regulatory gaps in poorly regulated contexts.
46. Wynne B, Felt U, Callon M, et al. Taking European knowledge society seriously. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission; 2007. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/ european-knowledgesociety_en.pdf. [Accessed 5 February].