Rethinking Human Embryo Research Policies.

embryo fourteen-day limit guidelines policy research ethics

Journal

The Hastings Center report
ISSN: 1552-146X
Titre abrégé: Hastings Cent Rep
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0410447

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Historique:
entrez: 25 2 2021
pubmed: 26 2 2021
medline: 26 11 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

It now seems technically feasible to culture human embryos beyond the "fourteen-day limit," which has the potential to increase scientific understanding of human development and perhaps improve infertility treatments. The fourteen-day limit was adopted as a compromise but subsequently has been considered an ethical line. Does it remain relevant in light of technological advances permitting embryo maturation beyond it? Should it be changed and, if so, how and why? What justifications would be necessary to expand the limit, particularly given that doing so would violate some people's moral commitments regarding human embryos? Robust stakeholder engagement preceded adoption of the fourteen-day limit and should arguably be part of efforts to reassess it. Such engagement could also consider the need for enhanced oversight of human embryo research. In the meantime, developing and implementing reliable oversight systems should help foster high-quality research and public confidence in it.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33630327
doi: 10.1002/hast.1215
pmc: PMC7986614
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

47-51

Subventions

Organisme : The Greenwall Foundation "Making a Difference"
Organisme : Brocher Foundation workshop
Organisme : Baker Institute Center for Health and Biosciences

Informations de copyright

© 2021 The Hastings Center.

Références

Hastings Cent Rep. 2021 Jan;51(1):47-51
pubmed: 33630327
Reprod Biomed Online. 2002 Nov-Dec;5(3):276-84
pubmed: 12470527
Trends Genet. 2016 Jul;32(7):385-390
pubmed: 27206380
Development. 2017 Mar 15;144(6):976-985
pubmed: 28292844
Perspect Clin Res. 2013 Jan;4(1):105-7
pubmed: 23533992
Curr Stem Cell Rep. 2018;4(3):228-234
pubmed: 30148047
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 May 30;18(1):38
pubmed: 28558751
Crit Care Med. 2001 Feb;29(2):235-41
pubmed: 11246299
J Law Med Ethics. 2012 Winter;40(4):930-44
pubmed: 23289696
Stem Cell Reports. 2020 Feb 11;14(2):169-174
pubmed: 31951813
Regen Med. 2020 Jul;15(7):1905-1917
pubmed: 32799737
J Med Philos. 1997 Oct;22(5):495-519; discussion 521-7
pubmed: 9360200
Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1985 Summer;63(3):504-22
pubmed: 3852077

Auteurs

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH