Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Should deceased donation be morally preferred i...

Electronic data

  • Williams-2016-Bioethics

    Rights statement: © 2016 The Authors Bioethics Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    Final published version, 172 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Should deceased donation be morally preferred in uterine transplantation trials?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Should deceased donation be morally preferred in uterine transplantation trials? / Williams, Nicola.
In: Bioethics, Vol. 30, No. 6, 07.2016, p. 415-424.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Williams N. Should deceased donation be morally preferred in uterine transplantation trials? Bioethics. 2016 Jul;30(6):415-424. Epub 2016 Feb 1. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12247

Author

Bibtex

@article{9c8f786710e3404d9a7e6fab8afcf0cc,
title = "Should deceased donation be morally preferred in uterine transplantation trials?",
abstract = "In recent years much research has been undertaken regarding the feasibility of the human uterine transplant (UTx) as a treatment for absolute uterine factor infertility (AUFI). Should it reach clinical application this procedure would allow such individuals what is often a much-desired opportunity to become not only social mothers (via adoption or traditional surrogacy arrangements), or genetic and social mothers (through gestational surrogacy) but mothers in a social, genetic and gestational sense. Like many experimental transplantation procedures such as face, hand, corneal and larynx transplants, UTx as a therapeutic option falls firmly into the camp of the quality of life (QOL) transplant, undertaken with the aim, not to save a life, but to enrich one. However, unlike most of these novel procedures – where one would be unlikely to find a willing living donor or an ethics committee that would sanction such a donation – the organs to be transplanted in UTx are potentially available from both living and deceased donors.In this paper, in light of the recent nine-case research trial in Sweden which used uteri obtained from living donors, and the assertions on the part of other research teams currently preparing trials that they will only be using deceased donors, I explore the question of whether, in the case of UTx, there existcompelling moral reasons to prefer the use of deceased donors despite the benefits that may be associated with the use of organs obtained from the living.",
keywords = "Uterine Transplants, Quality of Life Transplants, Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Transplantation Ethics, Reproductive Ethics",
author = "Nicola Williams",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2016 The Authors Bioethics Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.",
year = "2016",
month = jul,
doi = "10.1111/bioe.12247",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "415--424",
journal = "Bioethics",
issn = "0269-9702",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Should deceased donation be morally preferred in uterine transplantation trials?

AU - Williams, Nicola

N1 - © 2016 The Authors Bioethics Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PY - 2016/7

Y1 - 2016/7

N2 - In recent years much research has been undertaken regarding the feasibility of the human uterine transplant (UTx) as a treatment for absolute uterine factor infertility (AUFI). Should it reach clinical application this procedure would allow such individuals what is often a much-desired opportunity to become not only social mothers (via adoption or traditional surrogacy arrangements), or genetic and social mothers (through gestational surrogacy) but mothers in a social, genetic and gestational sense. Like many experimental transplantation procedures such as face, hand, corneal and larynx transplants, UTx as a therapeutic option falls firmly into the camp of the quality of life (QOL) transplant, undertaken with the aim, not to save a life, but to enrich one. However, unlike most of these novel procedures – where one would be unlikely to find a willing living donor or an ethics committee that would sanction such a donation – the organs to be transplanted in UTx are potentially available from both living and deceased donors.In this paper, in light of the recent nine-case research trial in Sweden which used uteri obtained from living donors, and the assertions on the part of other research teams currently preparing trials that they will only be using deceased donors, I explore the question of whether, in the case of UTx, there existcompelling moral reasons to prefer the use of deceased donors despite the benefits that may be associated with the use of organs obtained from the living.

AB - In recent years much research has been undertaken regarding the feasibility of the human uterine transplant (UTx) as a treatment for absolute uterine factor infertility (AUFI). Should it reach clinical application this procedure would allow such individuals what is often a much-desired opportunity to become not only social mothers (via adoption or traditional surrogacy arrangements), or genetic and social mothers (through gestational surrogacy) but mothers in a social, genetic and gestational sense. Like many experimental transplantation procedures such as face, hand, corneal and larynx transplants, UTx as a therapeutic option falls firmly into the camp of the quality of life (QOL) transplant, undertaken with the aim, not to save a life, but to enrich one. However, unlike most of these novel procedures – where one would be unlikely to find a willing living donor or an ethics committee that would sanction such a donation – the organs to be transplanted in UTx are potentially available from both living and deceased donors.In this paper, in light of the recent nine-case research trial in Sweden which used uteri obtained from living donors, and the assertions on the part of other research teams currently preparing trials that they will only be using deceased donors, I explore the question of whether, in the case of UTx, there existcompelling moral reasons to prefer the use of deceased donors despite the benefits that may be associated with the use of organs obtained from the living.

KW - Uterine Transplants

KW - Quality of Life Transplants

KW - Autonomy

KW - Beneficence

KW - Non-Maleficence

KW - Transplantation Ethics

KW - Reproductive Ethics

U2 - 10.1111/bioe.12247

DO - 10.1111/bioe.12247

M3 - Journal article

VL - 30

SP - 415

EP - 424

JO - Bioethics

JF - Bioethics

SN - 0269-9702

IS - 6

ER -