Xenograft recipients and the right to withdraw from a clinical trial

IF 2.3 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-01-06 DOI:10.1111/bioe.13262
Christopher Bobier, Daniel J. Hurst, Daniel Rodger, Adam Omelianchuk
{"title":"Xenograft recipients and the right to withdraw from a clinical trial","authors":"Christopher Bobier,&nbsp;Daniel J. Hurst,&nbsp;Daniel Rodger,&nbsp;Adam Omelianchuk","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13262","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Preclinical xenotransplantation research using genetically engineered pigs has begun to show some promising results and could one day offer a scalable means of addressing organ shortage. While it is a fundamental tenet of ethical human subject research that participants have a right to withdraw from research once enrolled, several scholars have argued that the right to withdraw from xenotransplant research should be suspended because of the public health risks posed by xenozoonotic transmission. Here, we present a comprehensive critical evaluation of the claim that xenotransplant recipients should be required to waive their right to withdraw from lifelong biosurveillance. We conclude that <i>if</i> xenotransplantation requires participants to waive their right to withdraw, then clinical trials may not be justifiable, given the ethical and legal obstacles involved with doing so. Consequently, <i>if</i> clinical trials are permitted with a right to withdraw, then they may pose a significant public health risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"38 4","pages":"308-315"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.13262","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Preclinical xenotransplantation research using genetically engineered pigs has begun to show some promising results and could one day offer a scalable means of addressing organ shortage. While it is a fundamental tenet of ethical human subject research that participants have a right to withdraw from research once enrolled, several scholars have argued that the right to withdraw from xenotransplant research should be suspended because of the public health risks posed by xenozoonotic transmission. Here, we present a comprehensive critical evaluation of the claim that xenotransplant recipients should be required to waive their right to withdraw from lifelong biosurveillance. We conclude that if xenotransplantation requires participants to waive their right to withdraw, then clinical trials may not be justifiable, given the ethical and legal obstacles involved with doing so. Consequently, if clinical trials are permitted with a right to withdraw, then they may pose a significant public health risk.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
异种移植物接受者和退出临床试验的权利。
利用基因工程猪进行的临床前异种移植研究已开始显示出一些有希望的结果,有朝一日可能为解决器官短缺问题提供一种可扩展的手段。虽然参与研究者一旦注册就有权退出研究,这是符合人类研究伦理的基本原则,但一些学者认为,由于异种动物传染会带来公共卫生风险,因此应暂停退出异种移植研究的权利。在此,我们对要求异种器官移植受者放弃终身生物监测退出权的主张进行了全面的批判性评估。我们的结论是,如果异种移植要求参与者放弃退出的权利,那么鉴于这样做所涉及的伦理和法律障碍,临床试验可能是不合理的。因此,如果临床试验允许参与者有权退出,则可能会对公众健康造成重大风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Bioethics
Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
9.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As medical technology continues to develop, the subject of bioethics has an ever increasing practical relevance for all those working in philosophy, medicine, law, sociology, public policy, education and related fields. Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries; public health; infectious disease; AIDS; managed care; genomics and stem cell research. These questions are considered in relation to concrete ethical, legal and policy problems, or in terms of the fundamental concepts, principles and theories used in discussions of such problems. Bioethics also features regular Background Briefings on important current debates in the field. These feature articles provide excellent material for bioethics scholars, teachers and students alike.
期刊最新文献
Shaping Future Children, Sex Selection, and "Normal" Human Capacities. Health Research Funders and Justice: Obligations to Coordinate and Counterbalance. A Role for Negative Genetic Selection in Space Exploration and Colonization. A Defense of Post-Viability Abortion. Size Does Matter! Prioritizing Rare Diseases for Luck Egalitarian Reasons.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1