Public funding for mitochondrial donation: An Australian public deliberation.

IF 3.1 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Ainsley J Newson, Jane Williams, Giuliana Fuscaldo, Ashleigh Hill, Ezra Kneebone, Karinne Ludlow, Catherine Mills, Megan Munsie, Sarah Norris, Paul Scuffham, Liz Sutton, David R Thorburn, Chris Degeling
{"title":"Public funding for mitochondrial donation: An Australian public deliberation.","authors":"Ainsley J Newson, Jane Williams, Giuliana Fuscaldo, Ashleigh Hill, Ezra Kneebone, Karinne Ludlow, Catherine Mills, Megan Munsie, Sarah Norris, Paul Scuffham, Liz Sutton, David R Thorburn, Chris Degeling","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01284-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mitochondrial donation (MD) is a reproductive technique that aims to allow individuals at-risk of having a child with mitochondrial DNA disease avoid this outcome. Research to inform possible clinical use of MD is underway in Australia and births following the use of this technique have been announced in the United Kingdom. However, how the availability of MD will be funded in the mid- to long-term remains uncertain. One factor impacting funding decisions is public sentiment, yet there is scant evidence globally regarding attitudes toward MD funding. We sought to discern attitudes of informed members of the Australian public to how the provision of MD should be funded.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We held three community juries to gauge public views on how MD should be funded. A community jury involves providing a diverse group of citizens with expert testimony and facilitating deliberation to arrive at a position.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-two jurors participated across three juries. All juries voted by majority to support public funding for MD. Each jury made slightly different funding choices: one preferred full public funding, another preferred co-payment, while the third was divided among full public funding, co-payment, and no public funding. Reasons in favour of public funding comprised value for money, equity (i.e., the fair and just distribution of MD) and promoting innovation. Reasons against were opportunity cost, that MD wasn't necessary, and ethical objections to MD. Jurors also devised conditions for future funding: external review, capped services, better funding for alternative interventions and means testing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Should the current Australian MD research trial enable clinical provision, assuming that our participants' views are consistent with those of most Australians when informed of the trade-offs, benefits and costs, then it is likely that there will be strong public support for governments to fund access. However, some people may object to this expenditure.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"131"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01284-4","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Mitochondrial donation (MD) is a reproductive technique that aims to allow individuals at-risk of having a child with mitochondrial DNA disease avoid this outcome. Research to inform possible clinical use of MD is underway in Australia and births following the use of this technique have been announced in the United Kingdom. However, how the availability of MD will be funded in the mid- to long-term remains uncertain. One factor impacting funding decisions is public sentiment, yet there is scant evidence globally regarding attitudes toward MD funding. We sought to discern attitudes of informed members of the Australian public to how the provision of MD should be funded.

Methods: We held three community juries to gauge public views on how MD should be funded. A community jury involves providing a diverse group of citizens with expert testimony and facilitating deliberation to arrive at a position.

Results: Forty-two jurors participated across three juries. All juries voted by majority to support public funding for MD. Each jury made slightly different funding choices: one preferred full public funding, another preferred co-payment, while the third was divided among full public funding, co-payment, and no public funding. Reasons in favour of public funding comprised value for money, equity (i.e., the fair and just distribution of MD) and promoting innovation. Reasons against were opportunity cost, that MD wasn't necessary, and ethical objections to MD. Jurors also devised conditions for future funding: external review, capped services, better funding for alternative interventions and means testing.

Conclusions: Should the current Australian MD research trial enable clinical provision, assuming that our participants' views are consistent with those of most Australians when informed of the trade-offs, benefits and costs, then it is likely that there will be strong public support for governments to fund access. However, some people may object to this expenditure.

线粒体捐赠的公共资金:澳大利亚公众审议。
背景:线粒体捐赠(MD)是一种生殖技术,旨在让有线粒体DNA疾病风险的个体避免这一结果。澳大利亚正在进行研究,以了解MD可能的临床应用,英国也宣布了使用该技术后的新生儿。然而,如何在中长期内为MD提供资金仍然不确定。影响资助决策的一个因素是公众情绪,但全球范围内关于对医学资助的态度的证据很少。我们试图了解了解情况的澳大利亚公众对如何资助医学博士的态度。方法:我们举行了三次社区评议,以评估公众对如何资助医学博士的看法。社区陪审团包括向不同群体的公民提供专家证词,并促进审议以达成立场。结果:三个陪审团共42名陪审员参与。所有的陪审团都以多数票支持公共资助MD。每个陪审团的资助选择略有不同:一个倾向于全额公共资助,另一个倾向于共同支付,而第三个则分为全额公共资助,共同支付和没有公共资助。支持公共资助的理由包括物有所值、公平(即公平公正地分配MD)和促进创新。反对的理由是机会成本,医学博士没有必要,以及对医学博士的道德异议。陪审员还为未来的资助制定了条件:外部审查,上限服务,更好地为替代干预和经济状况调查提供资金。结论:如果当前的澳大利亚医学研究试验能够提供临床服务,假设我们的参与者的观点与大多数澳大利亚人在被告知权衡、收益和成本时的观点一致,那么很可能会有强烈的公众支持政府资助获取。然而,有些人可能会反对这种支出。
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
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信