Search

Study Question: Does an informed group of citizens endorse the clinical use of mitochondrial donation in a country where this is not currently permitted?Summary Answer: 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.What Is Known Already: 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.Study Design, Size, Duration: 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.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: 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?'Main Results and the Role Of Chance: 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.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: Jurors' views were well informed and reflected critical deliberation and discussion, but are not intended to be representative of the whole population.Wider Implications Of the Findings: 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.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): 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.Trial Registration Number: Not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The first live birth following the use of a new reproductive technique, maternal spindle transfer (MST), which is a mitochondrial replacement technique (MRT), was accomplished by dividing the execution of the MST procedure between two countries, the USA and Mexico. This was done in order to avoid US legal restrictions on this technique. Sources of data Academic articles, news articles, documents obtained through freedom of information requests, laws, regulations and national reports. Areas of agreement MRTs are new reproductive techniques that present novel ethical and legal challenges, since genetic material from three people is employed to create a child. Areas of controversy Could the first MST procedure that culminated in a live birth negatively impact reproductive medicine in Mexico? Growing points The USA and Mexico need specific and clear legislation on MRTs, in order for such techniques not to be governed by prior existing legislation on assisted reproduction that is inadequate for dealing with the new challenges that these techniques present. Areas timely for developing research There is a pressing need for work to be done on the international governance of new reproductive techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2015, the UK was the first country to legalize the mitochondrial donation and replacement procedure, which allows three-parent in vitro fertilization, and results in three-parent embryos. In March 2017, the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority issued its first licence for the mitochondrial donation and replacement procedure to the Newcastle Fertility Centre under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015/572. This article focuses on one fundamental ethical and a legal challenge that this legislation overlooks: the right of the conceived children to know and trace their genetic origins. The article argues that this is a natural and basic human right, which is guaranteed by legal documents in the UK and internationally, and is also morally justified. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015/572 discriminate against three-parent persons by negating their right to know and trace their genetic origins. The article concludes with a justification for the specific amendment of the regulations so as to remedy the said unjust discrimination and violation of the natural and basic right to know and trace one's genetic origins. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The articles in this issue cover a wide range of topics, including the moral status of human embryos and human-animal chimeras and hybrids, the determination of death, theories of human cognition, and policies on the identity of mitochondrial donors. Despite this variety, there are two underlying questions that tie the articles together: what is a human being? And, what is the basis of moral status? First, I discuss these two questions and why they are important for bioethics. Then I provide summaries of the six articles in this issue and explain how each of them is connected to the questions of human nature and moral status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With an increasing number of ways to 'assist' reproduction, some bioethicists have started to wonder what it takes to become a genetic parent. It is widely agreed that sharing genes is not enough to substantiate the parent-offspring relation, but what is? Without a better understanding of the concept of reproduction (and what it means to say that an organism has reproduced), our thinking about parent-offspring relations and the ethical issues surrounding them risk being unprincipled. Here, I address that problem by offering a principled account of reproduction--the Overlap, Development and Persistence account--which I believe best captures the meaning of 'genetic parenthood'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

News about the first baby born after a mitochondrial replacement technique (MRT; specifically maternal spindle transfer) broke on September 27, 2016 and, in a matter of hours, went global. Of special interest was the fact that the mitochondrial replacement procedure happened in Mexico. Oneof the scientists behind this world firstwas quoted as having said that he and his team went to Mexico to carry out the procedure because, inMexico, there are no rules. In this paper, we exploreMexico's rule of law in relation to mitochondrial replacement techniques and show that, in fact, certain instances ofMRTs are prohibited at the federal level and others are prohibited at the state level. According to our interpretation of the law, the scientists behind this first successful MRT procedure broke federal regulations regarding assisted fertilization research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction or background: The UK is at the forefront of mitochondrial science and is currently the only country in the world to legalize germ-line technologies involving mitochondrial donation. However, concerns have been raised about genetic modification and the 'slippery slope' to designer babies. Sources of data: This review uses academic articles, newspaper reports and public documents. Areas of agreement: Mitochondrial donation offers women with mitochondrial disease an opportunity to have healthy, genetically related children. Areas of controversy: Key areas of disagreement include safety, the creation of three-parent babies, impact on identity, implications for society, definitions of genetic modification and reproductive choice. Growing points: The UK government legalized the techniques in March 2015. Scientific and medical communities across the world followed the developments with interest. Areas timely for developing research: It is expected that the first cohort of 'three parent' babies will be born in the UK in 2016. Their health and progress will be closely monitored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]