Public attitudes towards novel reproductive technologies: a citizens' jury on mitochondrial donation

被引:9
作者
Newson, A. J. [1 ]
de Lacey, S. [2 ]
Dowling, D. K. [3 ]
Murray, S. [4 ]
Sue, C. M. [5 ,6 ,7 ,8 ]
Thorburn, D. R. [9 ,10 ,11 ]
Gillam, L. [12 ,13 ]
Degeling, C. [14 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, Sydney Sch Publ Hlth, Sydney Hlth Eth, Fac Med & Hlth, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[2] Flinders Univ S Australia, Coll Nursing & Hlth Sci, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
[3] Monash Univ, Sch Biol Sci, Clayton, Vic 3800, Australia
[4] Mito Fdn, Surry Hills, NSW 2010, Australia
[5] Univ Sydney, Kolling Inst, Dept Neurogenet, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia
[6] Northern Sydney Local Hlth Dist, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia
[7] Univ Sydney, Fac Med & Hlth, Sydney Med Sch Northern, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia
[8] Royal North Shore Hosp, Northern Sydney Local Hlth Dist, Dept Neurol, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia
[9] Royal Childrens Hosp, Murdoch Childrens Res Inst, Parkville, Vic 3052, Australia
[10] Univ Melbourne, Dept Paediat, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia
[11] Royal Childrens Hosp, Victorian Clin Genet Serv, Melbourne, Vic 3052, Australia
[12] Royal Childrens Hosp, Childrens Bioeth Ctr, Melbourne, Vic 3052, Australia
[13] Royal Childrens Hosp, Sch Populat & Global Hlth, Melbourne, Vic 3052, Australia
[14] Univ Wollongong, Fac Social Sci, Australian Ctr Hlth Engagement Evidence & Values, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
关键词
mitochondria; qualitative research; deliberative research; attitudes; mitochondrial donation; mitochondrial replacement; ethics; REPLACEMENT TECHNIQUES; MEXICO RULE; THERAPY; POLICY; HEALTH; JURIES; LAW;
D O I
10.1093/humrep/dez021
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
STUDY QUESTION Does an informed group of citizens endorse the clinical use of mitochondrial donation in a country where this is not currently permitted? SUMMARY ANSWER After hearing balanced expert evidence and having opportunity for deliberation, a majority (11/14) of participants in a citizens' jury believed that children should be able to be born using mitochondrial donation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Research suggests that patients, oocyte donors and health professionals support mitochondrial donation to prevent transmission of mitochondrial disease. Less is known about public acceptability of this novel reproductive technology, especially from evidence using deliberative methods. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This study comprised a citizens' jury, an established method for determining the views of a well-informed group of community members. The jury had 14 participants, and ran over one and a half days in 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Jurors were members of the public with no experience of mitochondrial disease. They heard and engaged with relevant evidence and were asked to answer the question: Should Australia allow children to be born following mitochondrial donation?' MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Eleven jurors decided that Australia should allow children to be born following mitochondrial donation; 7 of whom added conditions such as the need to limit who can access the intervention. Three jurors decided that children should not (or not yet) be born using this intervention. All jurors were particularly interested in the reliability of evidence, licensing/regulatory mechanisms and the rights of children to access information about their oocyte donors. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Jurors' views were well informed and reflected critical deliberation and discussion, but are not intended to be representative of the whole population. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS When presented with high quality evidence, combined with opportunities to undertake structured deliberation of novel reproductive technologies, members of the public are able to engage in detailed discussions. This is the first study to use an established deliberative method to gauge public views towards mitochondrial donation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was funded by a University of Sydney Industry and Community Collaboration Seed Award (2017), which was awarded contingent on additional funding from the Mito Foundation. Additional funding was provided by the Mito Foundation. The Foundation was not involved in jury facilitation or deliberation, nor analysis of research data. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Not applicable.
引用
收藏
页码:751 / 757
页数:7
相关论文
共 42 条
[1]  
Abelson J., 2013, Journal of Public Deliberation, V9, P1
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2013, MIT REPL CONS ADV GO
[3]   The ethical challenges of the clinical introduction of mitochondrial replacement techniques [J].
Appleby, John B. .
MEDICINE HEALTH CARE AND PHILOSOPHY, 2015, 18 (04) :501-514
[4]  
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016, CEN QUICKST
[5]   Human Nuclear Genome Transfer (So-Called Mitochondrial Replacement): Clearing the Underbrush [J].
Baylis, Francoise .
BIOETHICS, 2017, 31 (01) :7-19
[6]   What Is Public Deliberation? [J].
Blacksher, Erika ;
Diebel, Alice ;
Forest, Pierre-Gerlier ;
Goold, Susan Dorr ;
Abelson, Julia .
HASTINGS CENTER REPORT, 2012, 42 (02) :14-17
[7]  
Bowden T., 2017, ABC NEWS
[8]   Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques: Remaining Ethical Challenges [J].
Bredenoord, Annelien L. ;
Appleby, John B. .
CELL STEM CELL, 2017, 21 (03) :301-304
[9]   From 'trust us' to participatory governance: Deliberative publics and science policy [J].
Burgess, Michael M. .
PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE, 2014, 23 (01) :48-52
[10]   Lesbian motherhood and mitochondrial replacement techniques: reproductive freedom and genetic kinship [J].
Cavaliere, Giulia ;
Palacios-Gonzalez, Cesar .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 2018, 44 (12) :835-842