Why it is important that we understand the information that gamete donors provide about themselves to recipients

A personal description and goodwill message is often the only form of communication a gamete recipient receives from the donor. However, the nature of the information gamete donors leave for recipients is not well understood. This Viewpoint article discusses a recent study published in this journal that makes a significant contribution to our understanding of this area of research and raises important questions for research going forward.

The 'haves' and 'have-nots' of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic: the ethics of emerging inequalities amongst healthcare workers

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated inequalities, including among the healthcare workforce. Based on recent literature and drawing on our experiences of working in operating theatres and critical care in the UK's National Health Service during the pandemic, we review the role of personal protective equipment and consider the ethical implications of its design, availability and provision at a time of unprecedented demand. Several important inequalities have emerged, driven by factors such as individuals purchasing their own personal protective equipment (either out of choice or to address a lack of provision), inconsistencies between guidelines issued by different agencies and organisations, and the standardised design and procurement of equipment required to protect a diverse healthcare workforce. These, we suggest, have resulted largely because of a lack of appropriate pandemic planning and coordination, as well as insufficient appreciation of the significance of equipment design for the healthcare setting. As with many aspects of the pandemic, personal protective equipment has created and revealed inequalities driven by economics, gender, ethnicity and professional influence, creating a division between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' of personal protective equipment. As the healthcare workforce continues to cope with ongoing waves of COVID-19, and with the prospect of more pandemics in the future, it is vital that these inequalities are urgently addressed, both through academic analysis and practical action.

Should the 14-day rule for embryo research become the 28-day rule?

The “14‐day rule”—broadly construed—is used in science policy and regulation to limit research on human embryos to a maximum period of 14 days after their creation or to the equivalent stage of development that is normally attributed to a 14‐day‐old embryo (Hyun et al, 2016; Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2017). For several decades, the 14‐day rule has been a shining example of how science policy and regulation can be developed with interdisciplinary consensus and applied across a number of countries to help fulfil an ethical and practical purpose: to facilitate efficient and ethical embryo research. However, advances in embryology and biomedical research have led to suggestions that the 14‐day rule is no longer adequate (Deglincerti et al, 2016; Shahbazi et al, 2016; Hurlbut et al, 2017). Therefore, should the 14‐day rule be extended and, if so, where should we draw a new line for permissible embryo research? Here, we provide scientific, regulatory and ethical arguments that the 14‐day rule should be extended to 28 days (or the developmental equivalent stage of a 28‐day‐old embryo).

Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques: Remaining Ethical Challenges

Recent developments in the field of mitochondrial replacement technique (MRT) research and clinical practice have raised ethical concerns worldwide. We argue that the future use of MRTs requires a concerted effort among the global research and clinical community to implement and enforce responsible innovation and governance.

Should Mitochondrial Donation Be Anonymous?

Currently in the United Kingdom, anyone donating gametes has the status of an open-identity donor. This means that, at the age of 18, persons conceived with gametes donated since April 1, 2005 have a right to access certain pieces of identifying information about their donor. However, in early 2015, the UK Parliament approved new regulations that make mitochondrial donors anonymous. Both mitochondrial donation and gamete donation are similar in the basic sense that they involve the contribution of gamete materials to create future persons. Given this similarity, this paper presumes that both types of donor should be treated the same and made open-identity under the law, unless there is a convincing argument for treating them differently. I argue that none of the existing arguments that have been made so far in favor of mitochondrial donor anonymity are convincing and mitochondrial donors should therefore be treated as open-identity donors under UK law.

Mitochondrial Replacement: Ethics and Identity

Mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs) have the potential to allow prospective parents who are at risk of passing on debilitating or even life-threatening mitochondrial disorders to have healthy children to whom they are genetically related. Ethical concerns have however been raised about these techniques. This article focuses on one aspect of the ethical debate, the question of whether there is any moral difference between the two types of MRT proposed: Pronuclear Transfer (PNT) and Maternal Spindle Transfer (MST). It examines how questions of identity impact on the ethical evaluation of each technique and argues that there is an important difference between the two. PNT, it is argued, is a form of therapy based on embryo modification while MST is, instead, an instance of selective reproduction. The article's main ethical conclusion is that, in some circumstances, there is a stronger obligation to use PNT than MST.

The ethical challenges of the clinical introduction of mitochondrial replacement techniques

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diseases are a group of neuromuscular diseases that often cause suffering and premature death. New mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs) may offer women with mtDNA diseases the opportunity to have healthy offspring to whom they are genetically related. MRTs will likely be ready to license for clinical use in the near future and a discussion of the ethics of the clinical introduction of MRTs is needed. This paper begins by evaluating three concerns about the safety of MRTs for clinical use on humans: (1) Is it ethical to use MRTs if safe alternatives exist? (2) Would persons with three genetic contributors be at risk of suffering? and (3) Can society trust that MRTs will be made available for humans only once adequate safety testing has taken place, and that MRTs will only be licensed for clinical use in a way that minimises risks? It is then argued that the ethics debate about MRTs should be reoriented towards recommending ways to reduce the possible risks of MRT use on humans. Two recommendations are made: (1) licensed clinical access to MRTs should only be granted to prospective parents if they intend to tell their children about their MRT conception by adulthood; and (2) sex selection should be used in conjunction with the clinical use of MRTs, in order to reduce transgenerational health risks.