This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (3)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Charles Marwick

JAMA. 1996;276(8):589-590.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

TWO REPORTS on the current status of xenotransplantation and the circumstances under which it can safely proceed were presented last month in Washington, DC. One comes from the United States' Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the other from Great Britain's Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Each report was discussed by those who prepared it at a meeting held by the IOM.

Essentially, the message was the same: when using animals as a source of organs, tissues, or cells for transplantation to humans, proceed with care if you proceed at all; recognize clearly the risks involved; xenotransplantation requires appropriate safeguards that are not yet in place. The procedures are still experimental.

Central vs Local Control

The British report, Animal-to-Human Transplants: The Ethics of Xenotransplantation, is more cautious and calls for more centralized regulation than does the US report, Xenotransplantation: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy. The latter, while also calling for specific . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?