Review of Ethics and Use of Animal-Based Surgical Products in Dermatology.

Q2 Medicine
Rebecca Olsen, Aarushi Gulati, Rachna Sahasrabudhe, Abdul Rahim Jaber
{"title":"Review of Ethics and Use of Animal-Based Surgical Products in Dermatology.","authors":"Rebecca Olsen, Aarushi Gulati, Rachna Sahasrabudhe, Abdul Rahim Jaber","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Animal- and human-derived materials are commonly used in dermatologic and cosmetic products, yet their presence is often unclear to clinicians and patients.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine ethical and informed-consent implications of these materials, particularly when they conflict with patients' religious, cultural, or personal values.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A narrative literature search and product formulary audit were conducted on PubMed through February 2025, augmented by United States Food and Drug Administration summaries and manufacturer dossiers. Data extraction focused on material origin, clinical use, outcomes, adverse events, and labeling transparency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Numerous dermatologic products contain animal- or human-derived components, such as rooster-comb-derived hyaluronic acid, bovine collagen grafts, shark-derived glycosaminoglycans, and human-derived materials. The source of these materials is frequently absent or inconsistently reported in labeling, limiting clinicians' ability to counsel patients effectively. Studies demonstrate that when informed and given alternatives, most patients prefer nonanimal-derived options. Advances in synthetic and bioengineered materials make such alternatives increasingly feasible.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>This review is not exhaustive. Given the extent of dermatologic and cosmetic products on the market and variability in ingredient disclosure, some animal- or human-derived materials may not have been captured. Rapid product innovation and inconsistent reporting of material origins further limit comprehensive identification.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Improved transparency regarding product origins is essential for meaningful informed consent in dermatology. Incorporating brief intake screening questions and updating consent forms to disclose material sources may enhance shared decision-making, patient trust, and ethically aligned, patient-centered care.</p>","PeriodicalId":53616,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology","volume":"19 9","pages":"42-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13668099/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Animal- and human-derived materials are commonly used in dermatologic and cosmetic products, yet their presence is often unclear to clinicians and patients.

Objective: To examine ethical and informed-consent implications of these materials, particularly when they conflict with patients' religious, cultural, or personal values.

Methods: A narrative literature search and product formulary audit were conducted on PubMed through February 2025, augmented by United States Food and Drug Administration summaries and manufacturer dossiers. Data extraction focused on material origin, clinical use, outcomes, adverse events, and labeling transparency.

Results: Numerous dermatologic products contain animal- or human-derived components, such as rooster-comb-derived hyaluronic acid, bovine collagen grafts, shark-derived glycosaminoglycans, and human-derived materials. The source of these materials is frequently absent or inconsistently reported in labeling, limiting clinicians' ability to counsel patients effectively. Studies demonstrate that when informed and given alternatives, most patients prefer nonanimal-derived options. Advances in synthetic and bioengineered materials make such alternatives increasingly feasible.

Limitations: This review is not exhaustive. Given the extent of dermatologic and cosmetic products on the market and variability in ingredient disclosure, some animal- or human-derived materials may not have been captured. Rapid product innovation and inconsistent reporting of material origins further limit comprehensive identification.

Conclusion: Improved transparency regarding product origins is essential for meaningful informed consent in dermatology. Incorporating brief intake screening questions and updating consent forms to disclose material sources may enhance shared decision-making, patient trust, and ethically aligned, patient-centered care.

皮肤病学中动物手术产品的伦理和使用综述。
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
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
104
×
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
小红书