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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Brandt, Reuven
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