Balancing Ethical Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Derived Gametes

Mertes, Heidi; Wert, Guido de; Pennings, Guido

doi:10.1007/s10439-017-1793-9

Cited by 25 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If the study participant consents to this clause, the researchers have greater flexibility to use the cells in different projects. The donor may also oppose the production of germ cells from his/her iPSCs, and ignoring this right by researchers would inevitably entail ethical and legal challenges [57, 67, 68].…”

Section: Ethical Legal and Social Issues In Using Ipscs For Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

Research and therapy with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs): social, legal, and ethical considerations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) can self-renew indefinitely in culture and differentiate into all specialized cell types including gametes. iPSCs do not exist naturally and are instead generated (“induced” or “reprogrammed”) in culture from somatic cells through ectopic co-expression of defined pluripotency factors. Since they can be generated from any healthy person or patient, iPSCs are considered as a valuable resource for regenerative medicine to replace diseased or damaged tissues. In addition, reprogramming technology has provided a powerful tool to study mechanisms of cell fate decisions and to model human diseases, thereby substantially potentiating the possibility to (i) discover new drugs in screening formats and (ii) treat life-threatening diseases through cell therapy-based strategies. However, various legal and ethical barriers arise when aiming to exploit the full potential of iPSCs to minimize abuse or unauthorized utilization. In this review, we discuss bioethical, legal, and societal concerns associated with research and therapy using iPSCs. Furthermore, we present key questions and suggestions for stem cell scientists, legal authorities, and social activists investigating and working in this field.

show abstract

Section: Ethical Legal and Social Issues In Using Ipscs For Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

Research and therapy with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs): social, legal, and ethical considerations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…28 Although the risks in IVG are more hypothetical than those in reproductive cloning (given the more extensive experience with reproductive cloning in other animals), it is fair to say that, at present, reproductive use of person-specific SCD gametes would be unacceptable given the high risks to the future child. 29…”

Section: Safe T Ymentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro gametogenesis and reproductive cloning: Can we allow one while banning the other?

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In vitro gametogenesis (IVG) is believed to be the next big breakthrough in reproductive medicine. The prima facie acceptance of this possible future technology is notable when compared to the general prohibition on human reproductive cloning. After all, if safety is the main reason for not allowing reproductive cloning, one might expect a similar conclusion for the reproductive application of IVG, since both technologies hold considerable and comparable risks. However, safety concerns may be overcome, and are presumably not the sole reason why cloning is being condemned. We therefore assess the non-safety arguments against reproductive cloning, yet most of these can also be held against IVG. The few arguments that cannot be used against IVG are defective. We conclude from this that it will be hard to defend a ban on reproductive cloning while accepting the reproductive use of IVG.

show abstract

“…194 In-vitro derived gametes to relieve infertility and maintain genetic connection between parents and children (where this is sought) are also the subject of research, including potentially in relation to same-sex couples, and may soon enter the policy arena. 195 In these and other cases questions will arise about the degree of need and the appropriate scope of autonomy as regards the technologies. 196 Ultimately, it is likely that the ECtHR will have to address these questions, at which point many of the insufficiently addressed issues at stake in SH in particular will resurface.…”

Section: The Prospects For Reproductive Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproductive Health: Morals, Margins and Rights

Scott

2018

Modern Law Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reproductive interventions and technologies have the capacity to generate profound societal unease and to provoke hostile reactions underpinned by various moral concerns. This paper shows that this position currently goes relatively unchecked by the European Court of Human Rights, which allows the margin of appreciation and consensus doctrines significantly to limit the scope of reproductive rights under the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8. This occurs both in relation to the interest in avoiding reproduction at stake in abortion, and that in achieving it at stake in medically assisted reproduction. The paper demonstrates significant flaws in the Court's framing and deployment of these doctrines in its reproductive jurisprudence. It argues that, as regards existing and upcoming reproductive interventions and technologies, the Court should attend to the concept of reproductive health, long recognised in international conventions and policy materials.

show abstract

Balancing Ethical Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Derived Gametes

Cited by 25 publications

References 80 publications

Research and therapy with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs): social, legal, and ethical considerations

Research and therapy with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs): social, legal, and ethical considerations

In vitro gametogenesis and reproductive cloning: Can we allow one while banning the other?

Reproductive Health: Morals, Margins and Rights

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About