Public attitudes towards novel reproductive technologies: a citizens' jury on mitochondrial donation.
attitudes
deliberative research
ethics
mitochondria
mitochondrial donation
mitochondrial replacement
qualitative research
Journal
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
ISSN: 1460-2350
Titre abrégé: Hum Reprod
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8701199
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 04 2019
01 04 2019
Historique:
received:
04
06
2018
revised:
11
01
2019
accepted:
12
02
2019
pubmed:
14
3
2019
medline:
22
7
2020
entrez:
14
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Does an informed group of citizens endorse the clinical use of mitochondrial donation in a country where this is not currently permitted? 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. 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. 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. 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?' 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. Jurors' views were well informed and reflected critical deliberation and discussion, but are not intended to be representative of the whole population. 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. 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. Not applicable.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30865256
pii: 5377828
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dez021
pmc: PMC6443113
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
751-757Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
Références
Health Expect. 2006 Sep;9(3):207-17
pubmed: 16911135
Hastings Cent Rep. 2012 Mar-Apr;42(2):14-7
pubmed: 22733324
Science. 2013 Sep 20;341(6152):1345-6
pubmed: 24052294
Public Underst Sci. 2014 Jan;23(1):48-52
pubmed: 24434712
Soc Sci Med. 2014 May;109:1-9
pubmed: 24657639
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 May 05;14:204
pubmed: 24885716
Stem Cells. 2015 Mar;33(3):639-45
pubmed: 25377180
Trends Mol Med. 2015 Feb;21(2):68-76
pubmed: 25573721
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Apr;131:114-21
pubmed: 25770463
Hum Reprod. 2015 May;30(5):1256-62
pubmed: 25790821
Med Health Care Philos. 2015 Nov;18(4):501-14
pubmed: 26239841
Monash Bioeth Rev. 2015 Dec;33(4):360-78
pubmed: 26712608
Hum Reprod. 2016 May;31(5):1058-65
pubmed: 26936885
Nat Rev Genet. 2016 Apr;17(4):189-90
pubmed: 26948818
Hastings Cent Rep. 2016 Jul;46(4):38-47
pubmed: 27198755
Nature. 2016 Jun 08;534(7607):383-6
pubmed: 27281217
Health Expect. 2017 Aug;20(4):626-637
pubmed: 27704684
Bioethics. 2017 Jan;31(1):55-67
pubmed: 27973716
Bioethics. 2017 Jan;31(1):7-19
pubmed: 27973718
Bioethics. 2017 Jan;31(1):46-54
pubmed: 27973719
Life Sci Soc Policy. 2017 Dec;13(1):1
pubmed: 28092013
Health (London). 2018 May;22(3):240-258
pubmed: 28127993
Genetics. 2017 Apr;205(4):1365-1372
pubmed: 28360127
BMJ. 2017 Jun 2;357:j2650
pubmed: 28576765
J Law Biosci. 2017 Mar 23;4(1):50-69
pubmed: 28852557
Cell Stem Cell. 2017 Sep 7;21(3):301-304
pubmed: 28886365
Sociol Health Illn. 2018 May;40(4):623-638
pubmed: 29235132
J Med Ethics. 2018 Dec;44(12):835-842
pubmed: 29491042
Hum Reprod Update. 2018 Sep 1;24(5):519-534
pubmed: 29757366
J Law Biosci. 2017 Oct 13;4(3):623-629
pubmed: 29868190