Ethics of Procuring and Using Organs or Tissue from Infants and Newborns for Transplantation, Research, or Commercial Purposes: Protocol for a Bioethics Scoping Review.

Q1 Medicine
Wellcome Open Research Pub Date : 2024-12-05 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.23235.1
Maide Barış, Xiu Lim, Melanie T Almonte, David Shaw, Joe Brierley, Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Trung Nguyen, Jerry Menikoff, Dominic Wilkinson, Julian Savulescu, Brian D Earp
{"title":"Ethics of Procuring and Using Organs or Tissue from Infants and Newborns for Transplantation, Research, or Commercial Purposes: Protocol for a Bioethics Scoping Review.","authors":"Maide Barış, Xiu Lim, Melanie T Almonte, David Shaw, Joe Brierley, Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Trung Nguyen, Jerry Menikoff, Dominic Wilkinson, Julian Savulescu, Brian D Earp","doi":"10.12688/wellcomeopenres.23235.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since the inception of transplantation, it has been crucial to ensure that organ or tissue donations are made with valid informed consent to avoid concerns about coercion or exploitation. This issue is particularly challenging when it comes to infants and younger children, insofar as they are unable to provide consent. Despite their vulnerability, infants' organs and tissues are considered valuable for biomedical purposes due to their size and unique properties. This raises questions about the conditions under which it is permissible to remove and use these body parts for transplantation, research, or commercial purposes. The aim of this protocol is to establish a foundation for a scoping review that will identify, clarify, and categorise the main ethical arguments regarding the permissibility of removing and using organs or tissues from infants. The scoping review will follow the methodology outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), consisting of five stages: (1) identifying the research question, (2) developing the search strategy, (3) setting inclusion criteria, (4) extracting data, and (5) presenting and analysing the results. We will include both published and unpublished materials that explicitly discuss the ethical arguments related to the procurement and use of infant organs or tissues in the biomedical context. The search will cover various databases, including the National Library of Medicine, Web of Science, EBSCO, and others, as well as grey literature sources. Two raters will independently assess the eligibility of articles, and data from eligible studies will be extracted using a standardised form. The extracted data will then be analysed descriptively through qualitative content analysis.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>There has been debate about how to respect the rights and interests of organ and tissue donors since the beginning of transplantation practice, given the moral risks involved in procuring parts of their bodies and using them for transplantation or research. A major concern has been to ensure that, at a minimum, donation of organs or other bodily tissues for transplantation or research is done under conditions of valid informed consent, so as to avoid coercion or exploitation among other moral harms. In the case of infants and younger children, however, this concern poses special difficulties insofar as infants and younger children are deemed incapable of providing valid consent. Due to their diminutive size and other distinctive properties, infants' organs and tissues are seen as valuable for biomedical purposes. Yet, the heightened vulnerability of infants raises questions about when and whether it is ever permissible to remove these body parts or use them in research or for other purposes. The aim of this protocol is to form the basis of a systematic scoping review to identify, clarify, and systematise the main ethical arguments for and against the permissibility of removing and using infant or newborn (hereafter, \"infant\") organs or tissues in the biomedical context (i.e. for transplantation, research, or commercial purposes).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our scoping review will broadly follow the well-established methodology outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute ( Peters <i>et al.</i>, 2020). We will follow a five-stage review process: (1) identification of the research question, (2) development of the search strategy, (3) inclusion criteria, (4) data extraction, and (5) presentation and analysis of the results. Published and unpublished bibliographic material (including reports, dissertations, book chapters, etc.) will be considered based on the following inclusion criteria: the presence of explicit (bio)ethical arguments or reasons (concept) for or against the procurement and use of organs or tissues from infants, defined as a child from birth until 1 year old (population), in the biomedical domain, including transplantation, research, and commercial development (context). We will search for relevant studies in the National Library of Medicine (including PubMed and MEDLINE), Virtual Health Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, EBSCO, Google Scholar, PhilPapers, The Bioethics Literature Database (BELIT), EthxWeb as well as grey literature sources (e.g., Google, BASE, OpenGrey, and WorldCat) and the reference lists of key studies to identify studies suitable for inclusion. A three-stage search strategy will be used to determine the eligibility of articles, as recommended by the JBI methodological guidelines. We will exclude sources if (a) the full text is not accessible, (b) the main text is in a language other than English, or (c) the focus is exclusively on scientific, legal, or religious/theological arguments. All articles will be independently assessed for eligibility between two raters (MB & XL); data from eligible articles will be extracted and charted using a standardised data extraction form. The extracted data will be analysed descriptively using basic qualitative content analysis.</p><p><strong>Ethics and dissemination: </strong>Ethical review is not required as scoping reviews are a form of secondary data analysis that synthesise data from publicly available sources. Our dissemination strategy includes peer review publication, presentation at conferences, and outreach to relevant stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results will be reported according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. An overview of the general data from the included studies will be presented in the form of graphs or tables showing the distribution of studies by year or period of publication, country of origin, and key ethical arguments. These results will be accompanied by a narrative summary describing how each included study or article relates to the aims of this review. Research gaps will be identified and limitations of the review will also be highlighted.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A paper summarising the findings from this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, a synthesis of the key findings will be disseminated to biomedical settings (e.g., conferences or workshops, potentially including ones linked to university hospitals) in the UK, USA, Türkiye, and Singapore. They will also be shared with the academic community and policy makers involved in the organ procurement organisations (OPO), which will potentially consider our recommendations in their decision-making processes regarding infant tissue/organ donation practice in these countries.</p><p><strong>Strengths and limitations of this study: </strong>The use of a rigorous, well-established methodological framework will ensure the production of a high-quality scoping review that will contribute to the bioethics literature.A comprehensive search of disciplinary and cross-disciplinary databases will be undertaken to ensure coverage of all possible sources that meet the inclusion criteria for the review.This review will focus exclusively on infant tissue/organ procurement/use in biomedical contexts, providing a comprehensive and reliable source of ethical arguments for future debates on this sensitive topic.The review will be limited to articles published in English, which increases the risk of missing relevant sources published in other languages.The review will be limited to articles for which the full text is available, which increases the risk of missing relevant sources that otherwise may have been included in the scoping review had the full text been accessible.</p>","PeriodicalId":23677,"journal":{"name":"Wellcome Open Research","volume":"9 ","pages":"717"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11747302/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wellcome Open Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.23235.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the inception of transplantation, it has been crucial to ensure that organ or tissue donations are made with valid informed consent to avoid concerns about coercion or exploitation. This issue is particularly challenging when it comes to infants and younger children, insofar as they are unable to provide consent. Despite their vulnerability, infants' organs and tissues are considered valuable for biomedical purposes due to their size and unique properties. This raises questions about the conditions under which it is permissible to remove and use these body parts for transplantation, research, or commercial purposes. The aim of this protocol is to establish a foundation for a scoping review that will identify, clarify, and categorise the main ethical arguments regarding the permissibility of removing and using organs or tissues from infants. The scoping review will follow the methodology outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), consisting of five stages: (1) identifying the research question, (2) developing the search strategy, (3) setting inclusion criteria, (4) extracting data, and (5) presenting and analysing the results. We will include both published and unpublished materials that explicitly discuss the ethical arguments related to the procurement and use of infant organs or tissues in the biomedical context. The search will cover various databases, including the National Library of Medicine, Web of Science, EBSCO, and others, as well as grey literature sources. Two raters will independently assess the eligibility of articles, and data from eligible studies will be extracted using a standardised form. The extracted data will then be analysed descriptively through qualitative content analysis.

Background: There has been debate about how to respect the rights and interests of organ and tissue donors since the beginning of transplantation practice, given the moral risks involved in procuring parts of their bodies and using them for transplantation or research. A major concern has been to ensure that, at a minimum, donation of organs or other bodily tissues for transplantation or research is done under conditions of valid informed consent, so as to avoid coercion or exploitation among other moral harms. In the case of infants and younger children, however, this concern poses special difficulties insofar as infants and younger children are deemed incapable of providing valid consent. Due to their diminutive size and other distinctive properties, infants' organs and tissues are seen as valuable for biomedical purposes. Yet, the heightened vulnerability of infants raises questions about when and whether it is ever permissible to remove these body parts or use them in research or for other purposes. The aim of this protocol is to form the basis of a systematic scoping review to identify, clarify, and systematise the main ethical arguments for and against the permissibility of removing and using infant or newborn (hereafter, "infant") organs or tissues in the biomedical context (i.e. for transplantation, research, or commercial purposes).

Methods: Our scoping review will broadly follow the well-established methodology outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute ( Peters et al., 2020). We will follow a five-stage review process: (1) identification of the research question, (2) development of the search strategy, (3) inclusion criteria, (4) data extraction, and (5) presentation and analysis of the results. Published and unpublished bibliographic material (including reports, dissertations, book chapters, etc.) will be considered based on the following inclusion criteria: the presence of explicit (bio)ethical arguments or reasons (concept) for or against the procurement and use of organs or tissues from infants, defined as a child from birth until 1 year old (population), in the biomedical domain, including transplantation, research, and commercial development (context). We will search for relevant studies in the National Library of Medicine (including PubMed and MEDLINE), Virtual Health Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, EBSCO, Google Scholar, PhilPapers, The Bioethics Literature Database (BELIT), EthxWeb as well as grey literature sources (e.g., Google, BASE, OpenGrey, and WorldCat) and the reference lists of key studies to identify studies suitable for inclusion. A three-stage search strategy will be used to determine the eligibility of articles, as recommended by the JBI methodological guidelines. We will exclude sources if (a) the full text is not accessible, (b) the main text is in a language other than English, or (c) the focus is exclusively on scientific, legal, or religious/theological arguments. All articles will be independently assessed for eligibility between two raters (MB & XL); data from eligible articles will be extracted and charted using a standardised data extraction form. The extracted data will be analysed descriptively using basic qualitative content analysis.

Ethics and dissemination: Ethical review is not required as scoping reviews are a form of secondary data analysis that synthesise data from publicly available sources. Our dissemination strategy includes peer review publication, presentation at conferences, and outreach to relevant stakeholders.

Results: The results will be reported according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. An overview of the general data from the included studies will be presented in the form of graphs or tables showing the distribution of studies by year or period of publication, country of origin, and key ethical arguments. These results will be accompanied by a narrative summary describing how each included study or article relates to the aims of this review. Research gaps will be identified and limitations of the review will also be highlighted.

Conclusions: A paper summarising the findings from this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, a synthesis of the key findings will be disseminated to biomedical settings (e.g., conferences or workshops, potentially including ones linked to university hospitals) in the UK, USA, Türkiye, and Singapore. They will also be shared with the academic community and policy makers involved in the organ procurement organisations (OPO), which will potentially consider our recommendations in their decision-making processes regarding infant tissue/organ donation practice in these countries.

Strengths and limitations of this study: The use of a rigorous, well-established methodological framework will ensure the production of a high-quality scoping review that will contribute to the bioethics literature.A comprehensive search of disciplinary and cross-disciplinary databases will be undertaken to ensure coverage of all possible sources that meet the inclusion criteria for the review.This review will focus exclusively on infant tissue/organ procurement/use in biomedical contexts, providing a comprehensive and reliable source of ethical arguments for future debates on this sensitive topic.The review will be limited to articles published in English, which increases the risk of missing relevant sources published in other languages.The review will be limited to articles for which the full text is available, which increases the risk of missing relevant sources that otherwise may have been included in the scoping review had the full text been accessible.

为移植、研究或商业目的获取和使用婴儿和新生儿器官或组织的伦理:生物伦理范围审查方案。
自移植开始以来,确保器官或组织捐赠得到有效的知情同意是至关重要的,以避免对强迫或剥削的担忧。当涉及到婴儿和更年幼的儿童时,这个问题尤其具有挑战性,因为他们无法提供同意。尽管婴儿的器官和组织很脆弱,但由于它们的大小和独特的性质,它们被认为在生物医学方面很有价值。这就提出了一个问题,即在什么条件下允许将这些身体部位用于移植、研究或商业目的。本协议的目的是为范围审查奠定基础,该审查将确定、澄清和分类有关从婴儿身上摘取和使用器官或组织的许可性的主要伦理争论。范围审查将遵循乔安娜布里格斯研究所(JBI)概述的方法,包括五个阶段:(1)确定研究问题,(2)制定搜索策略,(3)设置纳入标准,(4)提取数据,(5)呈现和分析结果。我们将包括已发表和未发表的材料,这些材料明确讨论了与生物医学背景下婴儿器官或组织的采购和使用有关的伦理争论。搜索将涵盖各种数据库,包括国家医学图书馆,科学网,EBSCO等,以及灰色文献来源。两名评分员将独立评估文章的合格性,合格研究的数据将使用标准化表格提取。然后,提取的数据将通过定性内容分析进行描述性分析。背景:自从移植实践开始以来,关于如何尊重器官和组织捐赠者的权利和利益一直存在争议,因为获取器官和组织的身体部位并将其用于移植或研究涉及道德风险。一个主要关切的问题是,确保用于移植或研究的器官或其他身体组织的捐赠至少是在获得有效知情同意的条件下进行的,以避免胁迫或剥削等道德损害。然而,就婴儿和幼童而言,这种关切造成了特别困难,因为婴儿和幼童被认为没有能力提供有效的同意。由于其微小的尺寸和其他独特的特性,婴儿的器官和组织被认为是有价值的生物医学目的。然而,婴儿的高度脆弱性引发了一个问题,即何时以及是否允许移除这些身体部位或将其用于研究或其他目的。本协议的目的是形成系统范围审查的基础,以确定、澄清和系统化支持和反对在生物医学背景下(即用于移植、研究或商业目的)切除和使用婴儿或新生儿(以下简称“婴儿”)器官或组织的主要伦理论据。方法:我们的范围审查将广泛遵循乔安娜布里格斯研究所(Peters et al., 2020)概述的成熟方法。我们将遵循五个阶段的审查过程:(1)确定研究问题,(2)制定搜索策略,(3)纳入标准,(4)数据提取,(5)展示和分析结果。已发表和未发表的书目材料(包括报告、论文、书籍章节等)将根据以下纳入标准进行考虑:在生物医学领域,包括移植、研究和商业开发(上下文),是否存在明确的(生物)伦理论据或理由(概念),支持或反对从婴儿(定义为从出生到1岁的儿童)获取和使用器官或组织。我们将在国家医学图书馆(包括PubMed和MEDLINE)、虚拟健康图书馆、Web of Science、谷歌Scholar、EBSCO、谷歌Scholar、PhilPapers、the Bioethics Literature Database (BELIT)、EthxWeb以及灰色文献来源(如谷歌、BASE、OpenGrey和WorldCat)和关键研究的参考文献列表中检索相关研究,以确定适合纳入的研究。根据JBI方法指南的建议,将采用三阶段检索策略来确定文章的资格。如果(a)全文不可访问,(b)主要文本是英语以外的语言,或(c)专注于科学、法律或宗教/神学论点,我们将排除来源。所有文章将在两个评分者(MB和XL)之间进行独立的资格评估;将使用标准化数据提取表格提取符合条件的文章中的数据并绘制图表。提取的数据将使用基本的定性内容分析进行描述性分析。 伦理和传播:不需要伦理审查,因为范围审查是一种二手数据分析形式,它综合了来自公开来源的数据。我们的传播策略包括同行评议出版物、会议报告以及与相关利益相关者的联系。结果:结果将根据PRISMA-ScR指南报告。纳入研究的一般数据概述将以图表或表格的形式呈现,显示按出版年份或时期、原产国和主要伦理论点划分的研究分布。这些结果将附有一份叙述性摘要,描述每一项纳入的研究或文章如何与本综述的目的相关。将确定研究差距,并强调审查的局限性。结论:一篇总结本综述发现的论文将发表在同行评议的期刊上。此外,将向英国、美国、泰国和新加坡的生物医学机构(例如,会议或讲习班,可能包括与大学医院有关的会议或讲习班)传播主要发现的综合结果。它们还将与参与器官采购组织(OPO)的学术界和政策制定者分享,这些组织可能会在这些国家关于婴儿组织/器官捐赠实践的决策过程中考虑我们的建议。本研究的优势和局限性:使用严格的、完善的方法框架将确保产生高质量的范围审查,这将有助于生物伦理学文献。将对学科和跨学科数据库进行全面搜索,以确保涵盖所有可能符合审查纳入标准的来源。本综述将专门关注生物医学背景下的婴儿组织/器官获取/使用,为未来关于这一敏感话题的辩论提供全面可靠的伦理论据来源。审查将仅限于以英文发表的文章,这增加了遗漏以其他语言发表的相关来源的风险。审查将仅限于全文可获得的文章,这增加了遗漏相关来源的风险,否则,如果全文可获得,这些来源可能被纳入范围审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Wellcome Open Research
Wellcome Open Research Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (all)
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
426
审稿时长
1 weeks
期刊介绍: Wellcome Open Research publishes scholarly articles reporting any basic scientific, translational and clinical research that has been funded (or co-funded) by Wellcome. Each publication must have at least one author who has been, or still is, a recipient of a Wellcome grant. Articles must be original (not duplications). All research, including clinical trials, systematic reviews, software tools, method articles, and many others, is welcome and will be published irrespective of the perceived level of interest or novelty; confirmatory and negative results, as well as null studies are all suitable. See the full list of article types here. All articles are published using a fully transparent, author-driven model: the authors are solely responsible for the content of their article. Invited peer review takes place openly after publication, and the authors play a crucial role in ensuring that the article is peer-reviewed by independent experts in a timely manner. Articles that pass peer review will be indexed in PubMed and elsewhere. Wellcome Open Research is an Open Research platform: all articles are published open access; the publishing and peer-review processes are fully transparent; and authors are asked to include detailed descriptions of methods and to provide full and easy access to source data underlying the results to improve reproducibility.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信