Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 579–591 | Cite as

Animal spare parts? A Canadian public consultation on xenotransplantation

Article
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Xenotransplantation, or the use of animal cells, tissues and organs for humans, has been promoted as an important solution to the worldwide shortage of organs. While scientific studies continue to be done to address problems of rejection and the possibility of animal-to-human virus transfer, socio-ethical and legal questions have also been raised around informed consent, life-long monitoring, animal welfare and animal rights, and appropriate regulatory practices. Many calls have also been made to consult publics before policy decisions are made. This paper describes the Canadian public consultation process on xenotransplantation carried out by the Canadian Public Health Association in an arm’s length process from Health Canada, the ministry overseeing government health policy and regulation. Focusing on six citizen fora conducted around the country patterned after the citizen jury deliberative approach, the paper describes the citizen panelists’ recommendations to hold off on proceeding with clinical trials and the rationales behind this recommendation. The consultation process is discussed in the context of constructive technology assessment, a framework which argues for broader input into earlier stages of technology innovation, particularly at the technology design stage.

Keywords

xenotransplantation and public participation citizen jury xenotransplantation and public policy constructive technology assessment 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Canadian Institute for Health Information (2002) Organ transplants in Canada. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiwebGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schliebs, D. (2001) A shortage of organs: can xenotransplantation fill the need? Helix, March, 7–10.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cooper, D.K. and R.P. Lanza (2000) Xeno: the promise of transplanting animal organs into humans, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bach, F., J. Fishman, N. Daniels, J. Proimus, B. Anderson, C. Carpenter, L. Forrow, S. Robson, and H. Fineberg (1998) Uncertainty in xenotransplantation: individual benefit versus collective risk, Nature medicine 4: 141–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Onions, D.E. and C.J. Witt (2000) Xenotransplantation: an overview of microbial risks and potentials for risk management, Rev. Sci Tech Off. Int. Epiz. 19, 1: 289–301.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patience, C., Y. Takeuchi, and R. Weiss (1997) Infection of human cells by an endogenous retrovirus of pigs. Nature medicine 3: 3, 282–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daar, A. (1999) Animal-to-human organ transplants — a solution or a new problem?, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 77, 1: 54–61.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Florencio, P.S. and T. Caulfield (1999) Xenotransplantation and public health: identifying the legal issues, Can. Journ. Pub. Health 90, 4: 233–236.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Singer, P. (1975) Animal liberation, Random House, New York.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    UK Advisory Group on the ethics of xenotransplantation (1997) Animal tissue into humans. Norwich: Her Majesty’s Stationery office.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dixon, P. (1993) The genetic revolution, Kingsway America, New York.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anonymous (1998) Alternative ways of meeting demand, Nature 391, January 22.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bach, F., J. Fishman, N. Daniels, J. Proimus, B. Anderson, C. Carpenter, L. Forrow, S. Robson, and H. Fineberg. (1998) Letter to the editor. Nature Medicine, Feb. 1.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Council of Europe (1999) Recommendation 1399: Xenotransplantation. Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Council of Europe (2000) Working Party on Xenotransplantation: Working Report. CDBI/CDSP-Xeno (2000) 12. July 12; OECD (1999). Xenotransplantation: international policy issues. Paris: OECD, 17.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pinch, T. and W. Bijker (1987) The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other, in W. Bijker, T. Hughes, and T. Pinch (eds.) The social construction of technological systems, MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    MacKenzie, D. and J. Wajcman (1985) The social shaping of technology. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schot, J. (1999) Constructive technology assessment comes of age: the birth of a new politics of technology, in: A. Jamison (ed.) Technology policy meets the public. PESTO papers II, Aalborg University, 207–232.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Joss, S. and J. Durant (1995) The UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology, Public Understanding of Science 4: 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Crosby, N. (1995) Citizens’ juries: one solution for difficulty environmental questions, in: R. Renn, T. Webler and P. Wiedemann (eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation: evaluating models for environmental discourse, Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fishkin, J (1995) The voice of the people: public opinion and democracy, Yale University Press, New Haven, CN.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stewart, J., E. Kendall and A. Coote (1994) Citizen juries. Institute for Public Policy Research, London.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coote, A. and J. Lenaghan (1997) Citizens’ juries: theory into practice, Institute for Public Policy Research, London.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jefferson Center, Citizens’ juries, www.jefferson-center.org/citizens_jury/Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Health Canada (1999) Proposed Canadian Standard for Xenotranplantation. Ottawa: Therapeutic Products Program.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Health Canada (2000) Minister Rock announces launch of public involvement process on xenotransplantation. Press release. Ottawa, July 22.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Expert Working Group on Xenotransplantation (1999) Proposed Canadian Standard for Xenotransplantation, Health Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Volpe, J. (1999). Organ and tissue donation and transplantation: a Canadian approach. Report of the Standing Committee on Health. Ottawa: House of Parliament.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Medlock, J. (2001) What’s the verdict? Evaluating a Citizens’ Jury on Xenotransplantation. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Canadian Public Health Association (2001) Animal-to-human transplantation: should Canada proceed? A public consultation on xenotransplantation, CPHA, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fischer, F. (1990) Technocracy and the politics of expertise, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wynn, B. and S. Mayer (1993) How science fails the environment. New scientist, 5 June, 35.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Einsiedel, E.F. (In Preparation) Assessing Technology — constructively and democratically.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Feenberg, A. (2001) Questioning technology, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Communication Studies Program, Faculty of Communication and CultureUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Cardiac Transplant ProgramUniversity Health Network, Toronto General HospitalTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations