Responsible innovation in stem cell research: using responsibility as a strategy

Responsible innovation has been introduced as an important condition for advancing the field of regenerative medicine. This is reflected in the frequent references to responsible research conduct and responsible innovation in guidelines and recommendations in academic literature. The meaning of responsibility, how responsibility could be fostered and the context in which responsibilities should be enacted, however, remain unclear. The goal of this paper is to clarify the concept of responsibility in stem cell research and to illustrate how this concept could inform strategies to deal effectively with the ethical implications of stem cell research. Responsibility can be dissected into four categories: responsibility-as-accountability, responsibility-as-liability, responsibility-as-an-obligation and responsibility-as-a-virtue. The authors focus on responsible research conduct and responsible innovation in general to move beyond the scope of research integrity and illustrate that different notions of responsibility have different implications for how stem cell research is organized.

Ethical implications of visual neuroprostheses-a systematic review

Objective. The aim of this review was to systematically identify the ethical implications of visual neuroprostheses.Approach. A systematic search was performed in both PubMed and Embase using a search string that combined synonyms for visual neuroprostheses, brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), cochlear implants (CIs), and ethics. We chose to include literature on BCIs and CIs, because of their ethically relavant similarities and functional parallels with visual neuroprostheses.Main results. We included 84 articles in total. Six focused specifically on visual prostheses. The other articles focused more broadly on neurotechnologies, on BCIs or CIs. We identified 169 ethical implications that have been categorized under seven main themes: (a) benefits for health and well-being; (b) harm and risk; (c) autonomy; (d) societal effects; (e) clinical research; (f) regulation and governance; and (g) involvement of experts, patients and the public.Significance. The development and clinical use of visual neuroprostheses is accompanied by ethical issues that should be considered early in the technological development process. Though there is ample literature on the ethical implications of other types of neuroprostheses, such as motor neuroprostheses and CIs, there is a significant gap in the literature regarding the ethical implications of visual neuroprostheses. Our findings can serve as a starting point for further research and normative analysis.

Fair allocation of cryopreserved donor oocytes: towards an accountable process

A growing number of people desire ART with cryopreserved donor oocytes. The allocation of these oocytes to couples and mothers to be is a 2-fold process. The first step is to select a pool of recipients. The second step is to decide who should be treated first. Prioritizing recipients is critical in settings where demand outstrips supply. So far, the issue of how to fairly allocate cryopreserved donor oocytes has been poorly addressed. Our ethical analysis aims to support clinics involved in allocation decisions by formulating criteria for recipient selection irrespective of supply (Part I) and recipient prioritization in case supply is limited (Part II). Relevant criteria for recipient selection are: a need for treatment to experience parenthood; a reasonable chance for successful treatment; the ability to safely undergo an oocyte donation pregnancy; and the ability to establish a stable and loving relationship with the child. Recipients eligible for priority include those who: have limited time left for treatment; have not yet experienced parenthood; did not undergo previous treatment with cryopreserved donor oocytes; and contributed to the supply of donor oocytes by bringing a donor to the bank. While selection criteria function as a threshold principle, we argue that the different prioritization criteria should be carefully balanced. Since specifying and balancing the allocation criteria undoubtedly raises a moral dispute, a fair and legitimate allocation process is warranted (Part III). We argue that allocation decisions should be made by a multidisciplinary committee, staffed by relevant experts with a variety of perspectives. Furthermore, the committees' reasoning behind decisions should be transparent and accessible to those affected: clinicians, donors, recipients and children born from treatment. Insight into the reasons that underpin allocation decisions allows these stakeholders to understand, review and challenge decisions, which is also known as accountability for reasonableness.

How digital health affects the patient-physician relationship: An empirical-ethics study into the perspectives and experiences in obstetric care

BACKGROUND

Digital health technologies are believed to change the patient-physician relationship. Such changes are still speculative, as there are no studies in which both patients and health care professionals are asked for their experiences and perspectives on how digital health affects the patient-physician relationship.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative interview study (n = 25) to identify relevant aspects of the patient-physician relationship as perceived by both health care professionals (n = 14) and patients (n = 11) of a digital monitoring platform for hypertensive disorders related to pregnancy. We focus on roles, responsibilities and medical decision-making.

RESULTS

Digital monitoring helps patients to better understand their own condition and contributes to shared decision-making in terms of information exchange. Yet for clinical decision-making both patients and health care professionals argue that health care professionals should stay in the lead. The collected data is by some health care professionals considered hard data that allows objective and more standardized decision-making, while others believe digital monitoring requires further interpretation in order to personalize the clinical care to the patient.

CONCLUSION

Digital technologies have subtle, yet double-edged, effects on the patient-physician relationship in terms of roles and responsibilities and the value addressed to the digital data. These insights let to 6 ethical recommendations for the implementation of digital health technologies to replace and support clinical care.

Should germline genome editing be allowed? The effect of treatment characteristics on public acceptability

STUDY QUESTION

To what extent do characteristics of germline genome editing (GGE) determine whether the general public supports permitting the clinical use of GGE?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The risk that GGE would cause congenital abnormalities had the largest effect on support for allowing GGE, followed by effectiveness of GGE, while costs, the type of application (disease or enhancement) and the effect on child well-being had moderate effects.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Scientific progress on GGE has increased the urgency of resolving whether and when clinical application of GGE may be ethically acceptable. Various expert bodies have suggested that the treatment characteristics will be key in determining whether GGE is acceptable. For example, GGE with substantial risks (e.g. 15% chance of a major congenital abnormality) may be acceptable to prevent a severe disease but not to enhance non-medical characteristics or traits of an otherwise healthy embryo (e.g. eye colour or perhaps in the future more complex traits, such as intelligence). While experts have called for public engagement, it is unclear whether and how much the public acceptability of GGE is affected by the treatment characteristics proposed by experts.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The vignette-based survey was disseminated in 2018 among 1857 members of the Dutch general public. An online research panel was used to recruit a sample representing the adult Dutch general public.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A literature review identified the key treatment characteristics of GGE: the effect on the well-being of the future child, use for disease or enhancement, risks for the future child, effectiveness (here defined as the chance of a live birth, assuming that if the GGE was not successful, the embryo would not be transferred), cost and availability of alternative treatments/procedures to prevent the genetic disease or provide enhancement (i.e. preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)), respectively. For each treatment characteristic, 2-3 levels were defined to realistically represent GGE and its current alternatives, donor gametes and ICSI with PGT. Twelve vignettes were created by fractional factorial design. A multinominal logit model assessed how much each treatment characteristic affected participants' choices.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The 1136 respondents (response rate 61%) were representative of the Dutch adult population in several demographics. Respondents were between 18 and 89 years of age. When no alternative treatment/procedure is available, the risk that GGE would cause (other) congenital abnormalities had the largest effect on whether the Dutch public supported allowing GGE (coefficient = -3.07), followed by effectiveness (coefficient = 2.03). Costs (covered by national insurance, coefficient = -1.14), the type of application (disease or enhancement; coefficient = -1.07), and the effect on child well-being (coefficient = 0.97) had similar effects on whether GGE should be allowed. If an alternative treatment/procedure (e.g. PGT) was available, participants were not categorically opposed to GGE, however, they were strongly opposed to using GGE for enhancement (coefficient = -3.37). The general acceptability of GGE was higher than participants' willingness to personally use it (P < 0.001). When participants considered whether they would personally use GGE, the type of application (disease or enhancement) was more important, whereas effectiveness and costs (covered by national insurance) were less important than when they considered whether GGE should be allowed. Participants who were male, younger and had lower incomes were more likely to allow GGE when no alternative treatment/procedure is available.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Some (e.g. ethnic, religious) minorities were not well represented. To limit complexity, not all characteristics of GGE could be included (e.g. out-of-pocket costs), therefore, the views gathered from the vignettes reflect only the choices presented to the respondents. The non-included characteristics could be connected to and alter the importance of the studied characteristics. This would affect how closely the reported coefficients reflect 'real-life' importance.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study is the first to quantify the substantial impact of GGE's effectiveness, costs (covered by national insurance), and effect on child well-being on whether the public considered GGE acceptable. In general, the participants were strikingly risk-averse, in that they weighed the risks of GGE more heavily than its benefits. Furthermore, although only a single study in one country, the results suggests that-if sufficiently safe and effective-the public may approve of using GGE (presumably combined with PGT) instead of solely PGT to prevent passing on a disease. The reported public views can serve as input for future consideration of the ethics and governance of GGE.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Young Academy of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (UPS/RB/745), Alliance Grant of the Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute (2017-170116) and National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Programme. No competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

The ethics of embryo donation: what are the moral similarities and differences of surplus embryo donation and double gamete donation?

Over the years, the demand for ART with donated embryos has increased. Treatment can be performed using donated ‘surplus embryos’ from IVF treatment or with embryos intentionally created through so-called ‘double gamete donation’. Embryo donation is particularly sensitive because treatment results in the absence of a genetic link between the parent(s) and the child, creating complex family structures, including full genetic siblings living in another family in the case of surplus embryo donation. In this paper, we explore the ethical acceptability of embryo donation in light of the similarities and differences between surplus embryo donation and double gamete donation. We will argue that no overriding objections to either form of embryo donation exist. First of all, ART with donated embryos respects patients’ reproductive autonomy by allowing them to experience gestational parenthood. It also respects IVF patients’ reproductive autonomy by providing an additional option to discarding or donating surplus embryos to research. Second, an extensive body of empirical research has shown that a genetic link between parent and child is not a condition for a loving caring relationship between parent(s) and child. Third, the low moral status of a pre-implantation embryo signifies no moral duty for clinics to first use available surplus embryos or to prevent the development of (more) surplus embryos through double gamete donation. Fourth, there is no reason to assume that knowledge of having (full or half) genetically related persons living elsewhere provides an unacceptable impact on the welfare of donor-conceived offspring, existing children of the donors, and their respective families. Thus, patients and clinicians should discuss which form of ART would be suitable in their specific situation. To guarantee ethically sound ART with donated embryos certain conditions have to be met. Counselling of IVF patients should involve a discussion on the destination of potential surplus embryos. When counselling donors and recipient(s) a discussion of the significance of early disclosure of the child’s mode of conception, the implications of having children raised in families with whom they share no genetic ties, expectations around information-exchange and contact between donor and recipient families or genetically related siblings is warranted. Importantly, conclusions are mainly drawn from results of empirical studies on single gamete donation families. To evaluate the welfare of families created through surplus embryo donation or double gamete donation additional empirical research on these particular families is warranted.

If it ain't broke don't fix it? Ethics of splinting deformed newborn ears

Neonatal ear splinting is a proven and safe method to mold deformed ears into a more common shape. Based on our earlier studies, splinting is recommended only before the age of six weeks and preferably within the first week after birth. This can be done by initiating a system in which this intervention is actively proposed to parents. In this paper, we ethically evaluate such a system. By molding perfectly healthy newborn ears, we reach the boundary between treatment and enhancement. A key question is, therefore, whether we could classify neonatal ear splinting as a therapy. On the level of the individual, the advantages outweigh the drawbacks, but on the level of society, it is more complicated. Making ear deformities a part of official national screening programs fails to meet WHO criteria. Moreover, by systematically offering ear molding, professionals may be promoting guilt or fear of missing the opportunity. Additionally, it could affect societal attitudes toward cosmetic deformities. However, if we argue that on the individual level infants may benefit from ear splinting, then active detection of ear deformities allows parents to choose in a timely way from the full range of options, including splinting and a wait-and-see approach. We are inclined to optimally inform parents without setting up a full-blown public health program. The extent to which it is possible to timely offer splints to parents of newborns depends on the infrastructure of health care systems. The key will be for everyone involved, public or commercial, to responsibly educate and facilitate.

Stakeholders views on the ethical aspects of oocyte banking for third-party assisted reproduction: a qualitative interview study with donors, recipients and professionals

STUDY QUESTION

What are the moral considerations held by donors, recipients and professionals towards the ethical aspects of the intake and distribution of donor bank oocytes for third-party assisted reproduction?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Interviews with oocyte donors, oocyte recipients and professionals demonstrate a protective attitude towards the welfare of the donor and the future child.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The scarcity of donor oocytes challenges the approach towards the many ethical aspects that arise in establishing and operating an oocyte bank for third-party assisted reproduction. Including experiences and moral considerations originating from practice provides useful insight on how to overcome these challenges.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The project was set-up as a qualitative interview study and took place between October 2016 and August 2017.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We conducted 25 semi-structured interviews with professionals engaged in the practice of oocyte banking (n = 10), recipients of donor oocytes (n = 7) and oocyte donors (n = 8). Key themes were formulated by means of a thematic analysis.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Based on the interviews, we formulated four main themes describing stakeholders’ views regarding the ethical aspects of the intake and distribution of donor bank oocytes. First, respondents articulated that when selecting donors and recipients, healthcare workers should prevent donors from making a wrong decision and safeguard the future child’s well-being by minimizing health risks and selecting recipients based on their parental capabilities. Second, they proposed to provide a reasonable compensation and to increase societal awareness on the scarcity of donor oocytes to diminish barriers for donors. Third, respondents considered the prioritization of recipients in case of scarcity a difficult choice, because they are all dependent on donor oocytes to fulfil their wish for a child. They emphasized that treatment attempts should be limited, but at least include one embryo transfer. Fourth and finally, the importance of good governance of oocyte banks was mentioned, including a homogenous policy and the facilitation of exchange of experiences between oocyte banks.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The possibility of selection bias exists, because we interviewed donors and recipients who were selected according to the criteria currently employed in the clinics.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Respondents’ moral considerations regarding the ethical aspects of the intake and distribution of donor oocytes demonstrate a protective attitude towards the welfare of the donor and the future child. At the same time, respondents also questioned whether such a (highly) protective attitude was justified. This finding may indicate there is room for reconsidering strategies for the collection and distribution of donor bank oocytes.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(s)

This study was funded by ZonMw: The Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (Grant number 70-73000-98-200). A.M.E.B. and B.C.J.M.F. are the initiators of the UMC Utrecht oocyte bank. J.J.P.M.P. is the director of the MCK Fertility Centre. IMC is working as a gynaecologist at the AMC Amsterdam oocyte bank. During the most recent 5-year period, BCJM Fauser has received fees or grant support from the following organizations (in alphabetic order): Actavis/Watson/Uteron, Controversies in Obstetrics & Gynaecologist (COGI), Dutch Heart Foundation, Dutch Medical Research Counsel (ZonMW), Euroscreen/Ogeda, Ferring, London Womens Clinic (LWC), Merck Serono (GFI), Myovant, Netherland Genomic Initiative (NGI), OvaScience, Pantharei Bioscience, PregLem/Gedeon Richter/Finox, Reproductive Biomedicine Online (RBMO), Roche, Teva and World Health Organization (WHO). The authors have no further competing interests to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Ethics in musculoskeletal regenerative medicine; guidance in choosing the appropriate comparator in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Regenerative Medicine (RM) techniques aimed at the musculoskeletal system are increasingly translated to clinical trials and patient care. This revolutionary era in science raises novel ethical challenges. One of these challenges concerns the appropriate choice of the comparator in (randomized controlled) trials, including the ethically contentious use of sham procedures. To date, only general guidelines regarding the choice of the comparator exist.

OBJECTIVE

To provide specific guidelines for clinical trial comparator choice in musculoskeletal RM.

METHODS

In this manuscript, we discuss the ethics of comparator selection in RM trials. First, we make a classification of RM interventions according to different health states from disease prevention, return to normal health, postponing RM treatment, supplementing RM treatment, substituting RM treatment, improving RM outcome, and slowing progression. Subsequently, per objective, the accompanying ethical points to consider are evaluated with support from the available literature.

RESULTS

a sham procedure is demonstrated to be an ethically acceptable comparator in RM trials with certain objectives, but less appropriate for musculoskeletal RM interventions that aim at preventing disease or substituting a surgical treatment. The latter may be compared to 'standard of care'.

CONCLUSION

From a scientific perspective, choosing the correct comparator based on ethical guidelines is a step forward in the success of musculoskeletal RM.

Privacy in Big Data psychiatric and behavioural research: A multiple-case study

In Big Data health research, concerns have risen about privacy and data protection. While the ethical and legal discussion about these issues is ongoing, so is research practice. The aim of this qualitative case study is to gain more insight into how these concerns are currently dealt with in practice. For this multiple-case study, the YOUth cohort, a longitudinal cohort focusing on psychosocial development, and Big Data Psychiatry, a pilot study in Big Data analytics on psychiatric health data, were selected. A broad range of relevant documents were collected and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders were conducted. Data were coded, studied and divided into themes during an iterative analytical process. Three themes emerged: abandoning anonymisation, reconfiguring participant control, and the search for guidance and expertise. Overall, the findings show that it takes considerable effort to take privacy and data protection norms into account in a Big Data health research initiative, especially when individual participant level data need to be linked or enriched. By embracing the complexity of the law in an early phase, setbacks could be prevented, the existing flexibility within the law could be utilised, and systems or organisations could be designed and constructed to take relevant rules into account. Our paper illustrates that a close collaboration of experts with different backgrounds within the initiative may be necessary to be able to successfully navigate this process.

Reasons for being in favour of or against genome modification: a survey of the Dutch general public

STUDY QUESTION

What are the general public's reasons for being in favour of or against the use of genome modification for five potential applications?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Overall, 43 reasons for being in favour, 45 reasons for being against as well as 26 conditional reasons for the use of genome modification were identified.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Various applications of somatic genome modification are progressing towards clinical introduction and several recent studies have reported on germline genome modification. This has incited a debate on ethical and legal implications and acceptability. There is a growing plea to involve the general public earlier on in the developmental process of science and (bio)technology including genome modification.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

In April 2016, a cross-sectional survey was launched online among the Dutch general public. A documentary on genome modification on public television and calls in social media invited viewers and non-viewers, respectively, to participate.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

The questionnaire introduced five potential future applications of genome modification: modified wheat for individuals with gluten intolerance; somatic modification for individuals with neuromuscular diseases; germline modification to prevent passing on a neuromuscular disease; germline modification to introduce resistance to HIV; and germline modification to increase intelligence. Participants were asked to indicate whether and why they would make use of genome modification in these scenarios. The reasons mentioned were analysed through content analysis by two researchers independently. The proportion of respondents that was willing to modify was described per scenario and associations with respondent characteristics were analysed.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The survey was completed by 1013 participants. Forty-three reasons for being in favour, 45 reasons for being against as well as 26 conditional reasons for the use of genome modification were identified. These could be categorized into 14 domains: safety of the individuals concerned; effectiveness; quality of life of the individuals concerned; existence of a clinical need or an alternative; biodiversity and ecosystems; animal homo sapiens (i.e. relating to effects on humans as a species); human life and dignity; trust in regulation; justice; costs; slippery slope; argument of nature; parental rights and duties; and (reproductive) autonomy. Participants' willingness to use genome modification was dependent on the application: most participants would eat modified wheat if gluten intolerant (74%), would use genome modification to cure his/her own neuromuscular disease (85%) and would apply germline modification to prevent passing on this neuromuscular disease (66%). A minority would apply germline modification to introduce resistance to HIV (30%) or increase intelligence (16%). Being young (odds ratio (OR) = 0.98 per year increase), being male (OR = 2.38), and having watched the documentary (OR = 1.82) were associated with being willing to apply genome modification in more scenarios.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

Inquiring for reasons through open questions in a survey allowed for a larger sample size and intuitive responses but resulted in less depth than traditional face-to-face interviews. As the survey was disseminated through social media, the sample is not representative of the overall Dutch population, and hence the quantitative results should not be interpreted as such.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Further public consultation and a more in-depth ethical and societal debate on principles and conditions for responsible use of (germline) genome modification is required prior to future clinical introduction.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

Funded by the University of Amsterdam and University Medical Centre Utrecht. No conflict of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.

Managing unsolicited findings in genomics: A qualitative interview study with cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is increasingly being employed in the context of personalized cancer treatment. Anticipating unsolicited findings that may arise during a NGS procedure is a key consideration; however, little is known about cancer patients' intentions, needs, and preferences concerning the return of unsolicited findings.

METHODS

A qualitative design using individual semi-structured interviews with 24 cancer patients was utilized to explore patients' decisions on whether to receive unsolicited findings from NGS. These interviews were subsequently analyzed using the constant comparative method to develop codes and themes.

RESULTS

We identified 4 interrelated themes that emerged in the context of the return of unsolicited findings. First, we describe how cancer patients expressed a strong need to control their lives. Second, we show the importance of family dynamics. Third, the NGS procedure regarding unsolicited findings is perceived as cognitively complex, and fourth, the procedure is also considered emotionally complex.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study contribute to a better understanding of what cancer patients consider important and what may motivate and influence them when making decisions on the disclosure of unsolicited findings following NGS. We show how Joel Feinberg's classification of autonomy may help clinicians to better understand cancer patients' desire for autonomous decision making while also acknowledging the emotional and cognitive difficulties regarding the disclosure of unsolicited findings. These insights could be helpful for clinicians to guide patients through this complex process.

Ethics of modifying the mitochondrial genome

Recent preclinical studies have shown the feasibility of specific variants of nuclear transfer to prevent mitochondrial DNA disorders. Nuclear transfer could be a valuable reproductive option for carriers of mitochondrial mutations. A clinical application of nuclear transfer, however, would entail germ-line modification, more specifically a germ-line modification of the mitochondrial genome. One of the most prominent objections against germ-line modification is the fear that it would become possible to alter 'essential characteristics' of a future person, thereby possibly violating the child's right to an open future. As only the nuclear DNA would contain the ingredients for individual characteristics, modification of the mtDNA is often considered less controversial than modification of the nuclear DNA. This paper discusses the tenability of this dichotomy. After having clarified the concept of germ-line modification, it argues that modification of the mtDNA is not substantively different from modification of the nuclear DNA in terms of its effects on the identity of the future person. Subsequently the paper assesses how this conclusion affects the moral evaluation of nuclear transfer to prevent mtDNA disorders. It concludes that the moral acceptability of germ-line modification does not depend on whether it alters the identity of the future child-all germ-line modifications do-but on whether it safeguards the child's right to an open future. If nuclear transfer to prevent mtDNA disorders becomes safe and effective, then dismissing it because it involves germ-line modification is unjustified.

Nuclear transfer to prevent mitochondrial DNA disorders: revisiting the debate on reproductive cloning

Preclinical experiments are currently performed to examine the feasibility of several types of nuclear transfer to prevent mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) disorders. Whereas the two most promising types of nuclear transfer to prevent mtDNA disorders, spindle transfer and pronuclear transfer, do not amount to reproductive cloning, one theoretical variant, blastomere transfer does. This seems the most challenging both technically and ethically. It is prohibited by many jurisdictions and also the scientific community seems to avoid it. Nevertheless, this paper examines the moral acceptability of blastomere transfer as a method to prevent mtDNA disorders. The reason for doing so is that most objections against reproductive cloning refer to reproductive adult cloning, while blastomere transfer would amount to reproductive embryo cloning. After clarifying this conceptual difference, this paper examines whether the main non-safety objections brought forward against reproductive cloning also apply in the context of blastomere transfer. The conclusion is that if this variant were to become safe and effective, dismissing it because it would involve reproductive cloning is unjustified. Nevertheless, as it may lead to more complex ethical appraisals than the other variants, researchers should initially focus on the development of the other types of nuclear transfer to prevent mtDNA disorders.

The duty to treat in the context of an influenza pandemic

The recent influenza pandemic proved that an influenza pandemic is no longer a future scenario. It may urge health care workers to undergo certain or even large risks. According to the WHO as well as commentators, a strong case can be made for adopting a duty to treat during a disease outbreak. Many current professional codes of ethics, however, fail to provide explicit guidance sufficient to set policy or assure the public in the event of an infectious disease outbreak. This paper aims to assess whether there is a duty to treat in the case of an influenza pandemic. As we conclude that there are valid reasons that support the duty to treat in this specific context, we will subsequently explore its scope and limits.

Reproductive decision-making in the context of mitochondrial DNA disorders: views and experiences of professionals

Although a scientific and ethical debate about the possible reproductive options for carriers of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations is developing, not much information regarding the views and experiences of professionals exists. This paper explores the attitudes and experiences of professionals involved on a daily basis with their patients' reproductive decision-making in the context of mtDNA disease. Qualitative international multicenter design using in-depth semi-structured interviews with 20 professionals has been utilized. We identified four main themes emerging from the interviews. Firstly, we illustrate the discussion among professionals as to what extent mitochondrial genetics differs from other areas in genetics, both technically and ethically. Secondly, we show the discomfort and doubts of professionals when an mtDNA mutation is involved, because of the uncertainty remaining after testing. Thirdly, we discuss how professionals struggle with the tension between, on the one hand, the ideal of reproductive autonomy and, on the other hand, the reality of their professional responsibility and complex clinical decision-making. Fourthly, we delineate the strategies used by professionals in order to make attempts to control uncertainty. This paper illustrates the impact on professionals of reproductive decision-making in the context of mtDNA disease. It shows their feelings of discomfort when interpreting and explaining uncertain or ambiguous data and may be perceived as an example of how professionals deal with the inherent limitations in genetic knowledge representing the state of the art. Insight into the experiences of professionals may contribute to a further improvement of reproductive genetic counseling in the context of mtDNA disorders.

Ooplasmic and nuclear transfer to prevent mitochondrial DNA disorders: conceptual and normative issues

BACKGROUND; Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) disorders are an important cause of human diseases. In view of the limitations of prenatal diagnosis and preimplantation genetic diagnoses, alternatives such as ooplasmic transfer (OT) and nuclear transfer (NT) have been proposed to prevent the transmission of mtDNA mutations. Both OT and NT are radical in the sense that they do not entail genetic selection, but genetic intervention to correct the genetic cause of the disease.

METHODS

After interviews with experts in the field, the relevant literature was searched and analyzed. Bioethical issues were divided into conceptual and normative points.

RESULTS

OT is the transfer of normal mitochondria to a carrier's oocyte containing mutant mtDNA. In case of NT, a donated oocyte is enucleated and replaced with the nuclear DNA from a woman carrying a mtDNA mutation. NT can be performed both before and after in vitro fertilization, respectively, with the nucleus of an unfertilized oocyte, with the pronuclei of the zygote, or with the nucleus of a blastomere of an embryo. Conceptual questions regard whether these techniques amount to germ-line modification and human cloning. Normative questions concern, among others, the significance of intervening in the mtDNA, the implications of having 'three genetic parents', the ethics of oocyte donation and the health and safety risks for children conceived as a result of one of these techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Further interdisciplinary debate and research is needed to determine whether a clinical application of OT and NT can be morally justified, and if so, under which conditions.

PGD to reduce reproductive risk: the case of mitochondrial DNA disorders

This paper discusses the pros and cons of introducing PGD for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) disorders such as NARP (Neurogenic muscle weakness, Ataxia, Retinis Pigmentosa)/Leigh, MELAS (Mitochondrial myopathy, Encephalopathy, Lactic acidosis, and Stroke-like episodes), private mtDNA mutations and LHON (Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy). Although there is little experience with PGD for mtDNA disorders, it is reasonable to assume that in many cases, the best one can achieve is the selection of the 'least' affected embryos for transfer. So instead of 'promising' parents a healthy child, PGD in these cases can only aim at reducing reproductive risk. From an ethical point of view, this raises challenging questions about parental and medical responsibilities. The main argument in favour of PGD is that it offers couples at risk the opportunity of reducing their chances of having a severely affected child. Potential objections are manifold, but we conclude that none of them supplies convincing moral arguments to regard risk-reducing PGD as unacceptable. Nevertheless, introducing this new application of PGD in clinical practice will raise further complex issues of determining conditions for its responsible use.