Cargando…
Mitochondrial donation and ‘the right to know’
In this paper, I examine two key arguments advanced by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and the Nuffield Council justifying anonymous mitochondrial donation, even though the ‘right to know’ is recognised in standard gamete donation. I argue that the two arguments they offer, w...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5099313/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27542387 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103587 |
_version_ | 1782465944928387072 |
---|---|
author | Brandt, Reuven |
author_facet | Brandt, Reuven |
author_sort | Brandt, Reuven |
collection | PubMed |
description | In this paper, I examine two key arguments advanced by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and the Nuffield Council justifying anonymous mitochondrial donation, even though the ‘right to know’ is recognised in standard gamete donation. I argue that the two arguments they offer, what I call the argument from genetic connection and the argument from personal characteristics, are unsuccessful. However, I provide additional reasons for why recognising the right to know in gamete donation but not in mitochondrial donation may be justified. I further argue that the status quo in the UK, which is to not recognise a right to know in mitochondrial donation, is provisionally acceptable. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5099313 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50993132016-11-14 Mitochondrial donation and ‘the right to know’ Brandt, Reuven J Med Ethics Extended Essay In this paper, I examine two key arguments advanced by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and the Nuffield Council justifying anonymous mitochondrial donation, even though the ‘right to know’ is recognised in standard gamete donation. I argue that the two arguments they offer, what I call the argument from genetic connection and the argument from personal characteristics, are unsuccessful. However, I provide additional reasons for why recognising the right to know in gamete donation but not in mitochondrial donation may be justified. I further argue that the status quo in the UK, which is to not recognise a right to know in mitochondrial donation, is provisionally acceptable. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-10 2016-08-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5099313/ /pubmed/27542387 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103587 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Extended Essay Brandt, Reuven Mitochondrial donation and ‘the right to know’ |
title | Mitochondrial donation and ‘the right to know’ |
title_full | Mitochondrial donation and ‘the right to know’ |
title_fullStr | Mitochondrial donation and ‘the right to know’ |
title_full_unstemmed | Mitochondrial donation and ‘the right to know’ |
title_short | Mitochondrial donation and ‘the right to know’ |
title_sort | mitochondrial donation and ‘the right to know’ |
topic | Extended Essay |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5099313/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27542387 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103587 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT brandtreuven mitochondrialdonationandtherighttoknow |