Use of fetal tissue in research and transplants
The ethical dilemma is whether tissues from 1. Burtchaell invoked various analogies.
Use of fetal tissue in research and transplants
The memo lists 10 questions that should be addressed by a Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel, once it is appointed and convened. The UAGA allows either parent to donate fetal tissue unless the other parent objects. Critics have sharply challenged DHHS's indefinite extension of the moratorium. The scientific data base supporting the usefulness of fetal tissue to repair or reverse disease is modest, and uses are speculative. In a departure from the nominations model being used, one senator asked to review the proposed list and personally discussed the proposed panelists with NIH officials prior to their invitation to serve. The second version of the societal legitimation argument focuses more on society's acceptance of abortion decisions and practices rather than on individual decisions, and it may not be directly countered by the panel's arguments that its proposed separation measures would reduce the likelihood that HFTTR would encourage abortion decisions by particular women. She still has a special connection with the fetus and she has a legitimate interest in its disposition and use. Decision concerning the timing of the abortion is based on the state of health of the mother, and of the fetus. Specific Altruism The second scenario raises the possibility that a pregnant woman or a woman contemplating pregnancy might donate fetal tissue to help a family member or acquaintance, which could result in abortions that would not otherwise have occurred. In contrast to the motivation of general altruism considered above, this motivation might be called specific altruism, that is, beneficence toward specific known individuals. There is not enough information about the usefulness of human fetal tissue in contributing to high-technology medicine, yet the ethical objections are insufficient to continue a moratorium. The ethical use of fetal tissue for transplantation and research.
Verklan MT 1. This brief overview provides the facts on the history of fetal tissue research and transplants.
Also of relevance is the National Organ Transplant Act of with subsequent amendments, which will be discussed later. The recommended guidelines were intended to reduce the likelihood that the possibility of donation would influence the pregnant woman's decision to abort. The tight schedule, the pressure for a prompt report, and the limited resources all contrasted sharply with the arrangements for other bodies dealing with ethical issues in science and health care, such as the National Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Biomedical and Behavioral Research, the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine, and the Task Force on Organ Transplantation.
Answers to this question hinge in part on matters that should be resolvable by empirical data—the reasons why women have abortions. There is not enough information about the usefulness of human fetal tissue in contributing to high-technology medicine, yet the ethical objections are insufficient to continue a moratorium. Stubblefi eld eds. Therefore, members of the transplant team should not influence or participate in the abortion process. The ad hoc committee which included the panel's chair and co-chairs and a member of the NIH Director's Advisory Committee considered the nominations in early July, emphasizing in their selections the qualifications of proposed panelists and the need for more women and minority panel members. Fourth, beyond the legal framework for abortion, the transfer of human cadaveric tissue is governed by the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act UAGA , which was adopted by all 50 states and the District of Columbia in the late s and early s. This formulation appears to leave open the possibility of a different balance if the procedure reached the point, without federally funded research, of providing an immediate, certain benefit. Furthermore, according to the panel majority, it is possible to set up guidelines or safeguards to reduce the likelihood of an impact on the incidence of abortion. Thus, in most cases, very disparate philosophical positions were melded into a coherent stance that was deemed acceptable by a substantial majority of the panel. Current, progressive alternatives such as induced pluripotent stem iPS cells provide an unlimited source of cells, which can be produced from tissue of any human being, without harm to the individual donor, and with the ability to form virtually any cell type for study and modeling,  or potential clinical application. There has been some privately funded HFTTR—for example, during fall , at the University of Colorado and Yale University, and it continues there and perhaps elsewhere in the United States as well as abroad; yet some people express the fear that without federal funding the field will not grow rapidly or attract the best researchers. The organoids have also provided excellent models to investigate Zika virus infection  of the developing human brain, all without resorting to destruction of human life to obtain cells or samples of fetal brain tissue. Another was of the researcher who visits an abortionist each week to obtain fetal tissue but who each time expresses his disapproval while planning to return the next week. Even if abortion were not viewed as immoral, these guidelines could be accepted for various reasons, including 1 the desire to allay the moral controversy in our society about abortion, or 2 the desire to reduce the vulnerability of some pregnant women to exploitation and coercion because of the need for fetal tissue. Noting that the risk of an increase in the number of abortions is speculative at best, the report's concurring statement stresses that similar speculative and tenuous risks that the society might encourage, as well as legitimate deaths resulting from homicide, suicide, and accidents, to gain organs for transplantation are not viewed as a sufficient reason to stop using organs from these sources Robertson, [fn.
At that meeting the report was put into final form: it contains the responses and considerations, along with the panel vote, for each question; a brief summary of the current scientific literature relevant to HFTTR; three concurring statements Judge Arlin Adams; Aron Moscona, joined by two other panelists; and John Robertson, joined in whole or in part by ten other panelists ; two dissenting statements by David Bleich and by James Bopp and James Burtchaell ; and a final dissenting letter Daniel Robinson.
Newer cell lines, e. To interpret the panel's deliberations and recommendations, it is necessary to discuss aspects of this context and the background to the panel's efforts.
based on 48 review