Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Xenotransplantation and Public Health: Identifying the Legal Issues

  • Published:
Canadian Journal of Public Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The debate over the acceptability of clinical trials for xenotransplantation has focussed primarily on analyses of: 1) the medical benefits that might accrue to individual patients in need of organ replacement therapy; 2) the risk of introducing new infectious disease(s) into the population; and 3) the ability of public safety measures to minimize that risk. It is now generally accepted that if we are to proceed with xenobiotechnology, sufficient public safety measures must first be adopted. Despite the growing consensus as to the indispensability of scientific safeguards, few authors have questioned the ability of current or novel legal frameworks to sustain and enforce such safeguards. A legal analysis of the public health concerns must be incorporated into the debate if we are to ensure a thorough and responsible decision-making process.

Résumé

Le débat sur l’acceptabilité des essais cliniques pour les xénotransplantations a essentiellement porté sur les analyses: 1) des bienfaits médicaux dont pourraient bénéficier les patients nécessitant une thérapie de remplacement d’organes; 2) des risques d’introduction d’une ou de plusieurs nouvelles maladies infectieuses au sein de la population; et 3) des capacités qu’ont les mesures de sécurité publique de minimiser ce risque. Tout le monde reconnaît aujourd’hui que si nous devons aller de l’avant avec la xénobiotech-nologie, il faut tout d’abord mettre en place des mesures suffisantes pour protéger la sécurité publique. En dépit du consensus croissant pour reconnaître qu’il est indispensable de disposer de mesures de protection scientifiques, rares sont les auteurs qui doutent que les cadres juridiques actuels et nouveaux ne puissent pas faire appliquer pareilles mesures de protection. Il importe donc d’intégrer au débat une analyse juridique des préoccupations relatives à la santé du public si l’on veut s’assurer de suivre un processus de prise de décisions qui soit complet et fasse preuve de responsabilité.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chapman LE, Folfs TM, Patterson AP, et al. Xenotransplantation and xenogeneic infections. N Engl J Med 1995;333:1498–501.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Allan JS. Xenotransplantation at a crossroads: Prevention versus progress. Nature Medicine 1996;2(1):18–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Allan JS. Silk purse or sow’s ear. Nature Medicine 1997;3(3):275–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. La Prairie AL, Hannah K, Brodie D. Policy Development for Xenotransplantation in Canada. Poster Abstract. Second International Conference on DNA Sampling: The Commercialization of Genetic Research. September 10–13, 1998, Edmonton, Alberta.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Murphy FA. The public health risk of animal organ and tissue transplantation into humans. Science 1996;273:746–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Isacson O, Breakefield XO. Benefits and risks of hosting animal cells in the human brain. Nature Medicine 1997;3(9):964–69.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tackaberry ES, Ganz PR. Xenotransplantation: Assessing the unknowns. CMAJ 1998;159(1):41–43.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Florencio P. The role of Canadian policy-makers in animal-to-human organ transplantation. CMAJ 1998; submitted.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bach F, Fishman JA, Daniels N, et al. Uncertainty in xenotransplantation: Individual benefit versus collective risk. Nature Medicine 1998;4(2):141–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lanza RP. Xenotransplantation. Scientific American 1997;July:54–59.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Deacon T, Schumacher J, Dinsmore J, et al. Histological evidence of fetal pig neural cell survival after transplantation into a patient with parkinson’s disease. Nature Medicine 1997;3 350–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Patience C, Takeuchi Y, Weiss RA. Infection of human cells by an endogenous retrovirus of pigs. Nature Medicine 1997;3(3):282–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Le Tissier P, Stoye JP, Takeushi Y, et al. Two sets of human-tropic pig retrovirus. Nature 1997;389:681–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Morse SS, Schluederberg A. Emerging viruses: The evolution of viruses and viral diseases. J Infect Dis 1990;162:1–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gibbons A. Where are new diseases born? Science 1993;261:680–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Pennisi E. First genes isolated from the deadly 1918 flu virus. Science 1997;275:1739.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Taubenberger JK, Reid AH, Krafft AE, et al. Initial genetic characterization of the 1918 “spanish” influenza virus. Science 1997; 275:1793–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hughes J. Xenografting: Ethical issues. J Medical Ethics 1998;24:18–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Butler D, Wadman M, Lehrman S, Schiermeier Q. Briefing xenotransplantation: Last chance to stop and think on risks of xenotransplantation. Nature 1998;391:320–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Vanderpool HY. Critical ethical issues in clinical trials with xenotransplants. Lancet 1998;351:1347–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Daar AS. Ethics of xenotransplantation: Animal issues, consent, and likely transformation of transplant ethics. World J Surgery 1997;21:975–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Berkelman RL, Bryan RT, Osterholm MT, et al. Infectious disease surveillance: A crumbling foundation. Science 1994;264:368–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hughes JM, La Montagne JR. Emerging infectious diseases. J Infect Dis 1994;170:263–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ciarlariello v. Schacter, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 119 at 135.

  25. Public Health Act, R.S.A. 1984, cP-27.1.

  26. B.(R) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315 at 317.

  27. Walker v. Region 2 Hospital Corp. (1994), 116 D.L.R. (4th) 477 (N.B.C.A.).

  28. Malette v. Shulman (1990), 67 D.L.R. (4th) 321 (Ont. C.A.).

  29. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1867 (U.K.), 1982, C. 11.

  30. Canadian AIDS Society v. Ontario (1995) 25 O.R. (3d) 388 (Ont. Gen. Div).

  31. Morgan F. Babe the magnificent organ donor? The perils and promises surrounding xenotransplantation. J Contemp Health Law and Policy 1997;14:127–60.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Hanson MJ. The seductive sirens of medical progress: The case of xenotransplantation. Hastings Center Report 1995; September–October: 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Patrik S. Florencio BSc, BCL 2

  2. Health Law Institute, Faculty of Law, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Timothy Caulfield BSc, LLM

Authors
  1. Patrik S. Florencio BSc, BCL 2
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy Caulfield BSc, LLM
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy Caulfield BSc, LLM.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Florencio, P.S., Caulfield, T. Xenotransplantation and Public Health: Identifying the Legal Issues. Can J Public Health 90, 282–284 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03404132

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03404132

Search

Navigation