Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques: Genetic Relatedness, Gender Implications, and Justice

Clinical translation of mitochondrial replacement therapy in Canada: a qualitative study of stakeholders’ attitudes

Mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT) in Canada is considered a criminal offense according to article 5(1)(f) of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (AHRA) (2004). The Act prohibits any practice that modifies the genome of “a human being or in vitro embryo such that the alteration is capable of being transmitted to descendants.” We carried out 32 semi-structured interviews with clinicians, researchers, patient groups, egg donors, and members of the public to explore their attitudes toward the clinical implementation of MRT in Canada. Our interview guide was informed by the socio-ethical, legal, and scientific literature of MRT. We used a thematic analysis to identify and analyze emerging themes and sub-themes. Our findings were divided into five broad themes: ( i) an outdated criminal ban, ( ii) motives for using MRT, ( iii) terminology, ( iv) practical and theoretical risks and benefits, and ( v) the feasibility of clinical translation in Canada. Although the public and stakeholders’ views on the feasibility of foreseeable translation of MRT in Canadian clinics varied, there was consensus on conducting an overdue review of the current AHRA ban on MRT.

Should Long-Term Follow-up Post-Mitochondrial Replacement be Left up to Physicians, Parents, or Offspring?

UK law permits parents to use mitochondrial replacement (MR) to have genetically-related children without serious mitochondrial disease. However, long-term follow-up is required for each case. Whether this follow-up should be left to physicians, parents, or offspring has not been established. Due to the experimental status of MR, physicians must inform parents of the risks and the importance of follow-up tailored to a specific mitochondrial disease. Given that the use of MR is a responsible exercise of reproductive freedom, parents should ensure that the follow-up is performed properly and in the best interests of their offspring. On becoming legally competent, the resulting children should be entitled to refuse follow-up provided that the prevention of mitochondrial disease with no adverse effects has been evident till then. This offspring-centred long-term follow-up approach might also be applied to the use of MR for infertility treatment, even though the primary endpoint is healthy live births.