ReviewSexual medicine2023
Ethical considerations regarding penis transplantation surgery in transgender men-an empirical ethics study.
Review in Sexual medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A scoping review of the ethical issues in gender-affirming care for transgender and gender-diverse individuals.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The ongoing quest to surgically create the (nearly) ideal neophallus in transgender men has led to the continuous development of transgender medicine and the proposed introduction of penis transplantation. However, both technical and ethical issues arise when developing this treatment. Aim: We sought to extract ethical considerations among different stakeholder groups regarding penile transplantation surgery in transgender men and to define preliminary clinical recommendations. Methods: Three semistructured focus groups, consisting of different stakeholders, were organized to participate in discussions of ethical considerations retrieved from the ethics literature of transplantation and transgender medicine. Analysis of the results was performed according to empirical ethics. Outcomes: Study outcomes were the identification of qualitative themes describing ethical considerations pertaining to penile transplantation in transgender men. Results: Nineteen people participated in this qualitative study. The main domains that emerged included arguments in favor of and arguments against penile transplantation. Although the participants expressed positive attitudes toward developing this care, with acknowledgement of the current limitations stakeholders of all groups were reluctant to endorse the introduction of penile transplantation for transgender men at this point. Clinical Implications: Under the present circumstances, all groups expressed both a wide variety of ethical considerations as well as a tendency to prefer developing alternative treatment options or improving the results of currently available treatments in relation to penile transplantation for transgender men. Strengths and Limitations: This study was the first (empirical) study to focus on this topic and included a diversity of stakeholder perspectives. Limitations included the hypothetical nature of the discussion as well as the clinical setting in which the topic has been studied. Conclusion: Introducing penile transplantation for transgender men, under the current circumstances, comes with a wide range of ethical considerations, which deal with personal identity, autonomy, medical risks, risk for transgender support and donor willingness, and issues regarding equality. Despite the present hesitancy to use penile transplantation, should the technical side of this treatment option develop, further research in the ethical field of penile transplantation for transgender men is recommended.
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.