ArticleJournal of medical ethics2004
Proceeding with clinical trials of animal to human organ transplantation: a way out of the dilemma.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Life and Health: A Value in Itself for Human Beings?HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2015Article
- Islet Xeno/transplantation and the risk of contagion: local responses from Canada and Australia to an emerging global technoscience.Life sciences, society and policy · 2015Review
- Living patients in a permanent vegetative state as legitimate research subjects.Journal of medical ethics · 2006Article
- Relatives of the living dead.Journal of medical ethics · 2006Article
- Respecting rights ... to death.Journal of medical ethics · 2006Article
- Research and patients in a permanent vegetative state.Journal of medical ethics · 2006Article
- Right of the living dead? Consent to experimental surgery in the event of cortical death.Journal of medical ethics · 2006Article
- Xenotransplantation: a bioethical evaluation.Journal of medical ethics · 2006Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The transplantation of porcine organs to humans could in the future be a solution to the worldwide organ shortage, but is to date still highly experimental. Further research on the potential effects of crossing the species barrier is essential before clinical application is acceptable. However, many crucial questions on efficacy and safety will ultimately only be answered by well designed and controlled solid organ xenotransplantation trials on humans. This paper is concerned with the question under which conditions, given the risks involved and the ethical issues raised, such clinical trials should be resumed. An alternative means of overcoming the safety and ethical issues is suggested: willed body donation for scientific research in the case of permanent vegetative status. This paper argues that conducting trials on such bodies with prior consent is preferable to the use of human subjects without lack of brain function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.