ISSN 2410-7751 (Print)
ISSN 2410-776X (Online)
Biotechnologia Acta V. 13, No 1, 2020
Р. 5-14, Bibliography 67, English
Universal Decimal Classification: 614.253 + 573.6 + 616-092
https://doi.org/10.15407/biotech13.01.005
BIOETHICS AND TECHNOLOGIES OF REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE
National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kiev Polytechnic Institute”
With the development of biomedical technologies, scientists are faced with new thresholds of moral and ethical framework of society. Therefore, to conduct further experiments that can be in line with generally accepted norms of morality, it is necessary to develop a number of bioethical principles in order to be able to control the situation and to prevent "crimes against conscience". Among other biotechnological direction, the field of assisted reproductive technology (ART) is rapidly progressing with many new advances in the last decade. From these circumstances, it is necessary to point out areas of technology that may be controversial or were new enough to require proper ethical control.
The focus of this review was to analyze existing international documents related to biomedical research, to identify their advantages and disadvantages, and to describe the ethical problems of the use of the latest advances in the field of reproductive medicine. Thus, the main objectives described in the article were: i) to analyze the feasibility of the current biomedical research and to highlight the main problems of bioethics; ii) to discuss existing international documents related to bioethics and biomedicine; iii) to describe the current achievements of reproductive medicine and to highlight the problems of their implementation in life.
Key words: bioethics, reproductive medicine, Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, human cloning, transplantation, assisted reproductive technology (ART)
© Palladin Institute of Biochemistry of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 2020
References
1. Dehtiarenko T., Kodzhebash V. Bioethical Aspects of Anthropogenetics in Noosphere Education Concept. Nauka i osvita. 2017, 158 (5), 40–46. (In Ukrainian) https://doi.org/10.24195/2414-4665-2017-5-8
2. Savulescu J. Bioethics: why philosophy is essential for progress. J. Med. Ethics. 2015, 41 (1), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102284
3. Grygorenko A. A., Galkin O. Yu. Bioethics in Ukraine: from Theory to Practice. Legal, Scientific and Educational Aspects. Naukovі vіstі Natsіonalnogo tekhnіchnogo unіversytetu Ukrainy «Kyivskii polіtekhnіchnyi іnstytut». 2011, No 3, P. 12–19. (In Ukrainian)
4. Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, Oviedo, 04/04/1997.
5. Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings, Paris, 12/01/1998.
6. Ermishin A. P. Biotekhnolohiya. Biobezopasnost'. Bioetika. Edited by A. L. Ermishina. Minsk.: Tekhnalohiya. 2005, 430 p. (In Russian).
7. Tsekos C. A., Bissa M. N. Two Important Issues in Environmental Ethics: Cloning and Genetic Engineering. Voice of the Publisher. 2017, N0 3, P. 34–41. https://doi.org/10.4236/vp.2017.33004
8. Bahadur S. Biomedical technologies, eugenics, and human cloning: public health law and legal issues in health practice. J. Rehman. Med. Inst. 2017, 3 (3–4), 1–4.
9. Alt?n?rs N., Haberal M. Transplant Ethics. Experimental and clinical transplantation: official journal of the Middle East Society for Organ Transplantation. 2016, 14 (3), 32–36. https://doi.org/10.6002/ect.tondtdtd2016.O1
10. Galston W. Philosophical dimensions of public policy. Routledge. 2017.
11. Jasanoff S. The ethics of invention: technology and the human future. WW Norton & Company. 2016.
12. Chan D. K. The concept of human dignity in the ethics of genetic research. Bioethics. 2015, 29 (4), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12102
13. Blank R. H. The political implications of human genetic technology. Routledge. 2019. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429313752
14. Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine concerning Transplantation of Organs and Tissues of Human Origin, Strasbourg, 24/01/2002
15. Abolіna T. G., Napadista V. G., Rihlіtska O. D.. Applied Ethics. Study guide. Edited by A. L. Ermishina. V. І. Panchenko. Kyiv: Centr uchbovoї lіteraturi. 2012, 392 p.
16. Reese P. P., Boudville N., Garg A. X. Living kidney donation: outcomes, ethics, and uncertainty. The Lancet. 2015, 385 (9981), 2003–2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62484-3
17. Veatch R. M., Ross L. F. Transplantation ethics. Georgetown University Press. 2015.
18. Kelsey N. Berry, Norman Daniels, Keren Ladin. Should Lack of Social Support Prevent Access to Organ Transplantation? The Amer. J. Bioethics. 2019, 19 (11), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1665728
19. Furr A., Hardy M. A., Barret J. P., Barker J. H. Surgical, ethical, and psychosocial considerations in human head transplantation. Inter. J. Surgery. 2017, V. 41, P. 190–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.01.077
20. Caplan A. L. Kimberly L. L, Parent B, Sosin M, Rodriguez E. D. The ethics of penile transplantation: preliminary recommendations. Transplantation. 2017, 101 (6), 1200–1205. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000001352
21. Bruno B., Arora K. S. Uterus transplantation: the ethics of using deceased versus living donors. The Amer. J. Bioethics. 2018, 18 (7), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1478018
22. Arora K. S., Blake V. Uterus transplantation: the ethics of moving the womb. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2015, 125 (4), 971–974. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2013-101400
23. Zaidi D. Re-Evaluating the Ethics of Uterine Transplantation. The J. Clin. Ethics. 2017, 28 (3), 212–216. PMID: 28930707
24. Br?nnstr?m M., Johannesson L., Bokstr?m H., Kvarnstr?m N., M?lne J., Dahm-K?hler P., Enskog A., Milenkovic M., Ekberg J., Diaz-Garcia C., Hanafy A., Hagberg H., Olausson M., Nilsson L. Livebirth after uterus transplantation. The Lancet. 2015, 385 (9968), 607–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61728-1
25. The Belmont Report. Office of the Secretary. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, April 18, 1979.
26. Ross L. F., Thistlethwaite J. R. Developing an ethics framework for living donor transplantation. J. Med. Ethics. 2018, 44 (12), 843–850. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-104762
27. Veatch R. M., Guidry-Grimes L. K. The basics of bioethics. Routledge. 2019. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429507519
28. Kundіiv Yu., Dembnovetskii O., Chashchin M., Rudii R. Bioethics – a new degree of integration of the natural sciences and humanities. Vіsnyk NAN Ukrainy. 2002, No 11.
29. Suprun О., Sverhunova А., Sverhunov А. The place of xenotransplantation among existing other kinds of transplantation. Actual Problems of Modern Medicine. 2018, 1 (1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.26565/2617-409X-2018-1-05
30. Douglas MacKay, Alexandra Robinson. The Ethics of Organ Donor Registration Policies: Nudges and Respect for Autonomy. The Amer. J. Bioethics. 2016, 16 (11), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2016.1222007
31. Law of Ukraine ”On the application of transplantation of human anatomical materials”. Accepted 2018.05.17.
32. Ashok A., Chak-Lam C., Esteves S. C. Best Practice Guidelines for Sperm DNA Fragmentation Testing. Male Infertility. Springer, Cham. 2020, P. 793–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32300-4_63
33. T?mmel T. N. Reproductive Medicine and Parental Responsibility. Technology, Anthropology and Dimensions of Responsibility. J. B Metzler, Stuttgart. 2020, P. 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04896-7_13
34. Mani S., Ghosh J., Coutifaris C., Sapienza C., Mainigi M. Epigenetic changes and assisted reproductive technologies. Epigenetics. 2020, 15 (1–2), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/15592294.2019.1646572
35. De Geyter C. Assisted reproductive technology: impact on society and need for surveillance. Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2019, 33 (1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beem.2019.01.004
36. Sugarman J. Ethics and germline gene editing. EMBO reports. 2015, 16 (8), 879–880. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201540879
37. Hmіl S. V., Hmіl M. S. Achievements and prospects of development of modern methods of assisted reproductive technologies in the treatment of infertility. Zdobutky klіnіchnoi і eksperimentalnoi medycyny. 2015, No 4. (In Ukrainian).
38. Korsak V. S., Vaharlovskii V. G., Isakova Je. V. Intrauterine artificial insemination. Sperm donation. SPb.: OOO «Izdatelstvo N-L». 2002, 32 p. (In Russian).
39. Kulakov V. I., Kuz'michev L. N, Mosesova Ju. E. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection into the oocyte: current status. Moskva. 2007, P. 58. (In Russian).
40. Daley G. Q. Introduction to the Special Issue on CRISPR. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 2020, 63 (1), 1–13. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2020.0000
41. Smith F. T. What should be our community’s Responsibility? Amer. J. Biomed. Sci. Res. 2019, 4 (1), 4–5. https://doi.org/10.34297/ajbsr.2019.04.000742
42. Dimond R. Social and ethical issues in mitochondrial donation. Br. Med. Bull. 2015, 115 (1), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldv037
43. Meiliana A., Dewi N. M., Wijaya A. Genome Editing with Crispr-Cas9 Systems: Basic Research and Clinical Applications. The Indonesian Biomed. J. 2017, 9 (1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.18585/inabj.v9i1.272
44. Rehman R., Mustafa R., Baig M., Arif S., Hashmi M. F. Use of follicular output rate to predict intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome. Inter. J. fertility & sterility. 2016, 10 (2), 169. PMID: 27441049. https://doi.org/10.22074/ijfs.2016.4906
45. Zhang N. , Hao C. F., Zhuang L. L., Liu X. Y., Gu H/ F., Liu S., Chen Z. J. Prediction of IVF/ICSI outcome based on the follicular output rate. Reproductive biomed. online. 2013, 27 (2), 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.04.012
46. Rehman R., Mustafa R., Hoor T, Khan R., Gul H, Importance of estimation of follicular output rate (FORT) in females assisted by intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2015, 4 (1), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.5455/2320-1770.ijrcog20150224
47. Heindryckx B., Van der Elst J., De Sutter P., Dhont M. Treatment option for sperm- or oocyte-related fertilization failure: assisted oocyte activation following diagnostic hete rologous ICSI. Hum. Reprod. 2005, V. 20, P. 2237–2241. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei029
48. Bavister B. D. Early history of in vitro fertilization. Reproduction. 2002, No 124, Р. 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1530/rep.0.1240181
49. Das S., Blake D., Farquhar C., Seif M. M. Assisted hatching on assisted conception (IVF and ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst. 2009, Rev. 2, CD001894. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858
50. Harper J. C., Harton G. The use of arrays in preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. Fertil. Steril. 2010, No 94, Р. 1173–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.064
51. Katz-Jaffe M. G., McReynolds S., Gardner D. K., Schoolcraft W. B. The role of proteomics in defining the human embryonic secretome. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 2009, No 15, Р. 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1093/molehr/gap012
52. Granne I., Child T., Hartshorne G. British Fertility Society, Embryo cryopreservation: evidence for practice. Hum. Fertil. (Camb). 2008, No 11, Р. 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647270802242205
53. Nagy Z. P., Shapiro D., Chang C. C. Vitrification of the human embryo: a more efficient and safer in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertility and Sterility. 2020, 113 (2), 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert
54. Bosch E., De Vos M., Humaidan P. The Future of Cryopreservation in Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2020, V. 11, P. 67. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2020.00067
55. Kulakov V. I. Treatment of female and male infertility. Assisted Reproductive Technologies / Pod red. Kulakova V. I., Leonova B. V., Kuzmicheva L. N. Moskva: Medicinskoe informacionnoe agenstvo. 2005, 592 p. (In Russian).
56. Hmіl S. V., Kuchma Z. M., Romanchuk L. І. Gіnekologіja. Ternopіl: Textbooks and manuals. 2006, 528 p.
57. Anisimov A. The surrogate motherhood: law, morals, and policy. J. Modern Sci. 2013, 18 (3), 105–116.
58. Gadzhimagomedova Sh. S., Kuhmazova A. T. Pravovoe Obespechenie Surrogatnogo Materinstva: Rossiшskiy I Zarubezhnyy Opyt. Obrazovanie i pravo. 2020, No 1. (In Russian).
59. Smovzhenko T. S. The Ukrainian person in the European world: dimensions of identity: navch. posіbnik. Edited by prof. T. S. Smovzhenko, PhD prof. Z. E. Skrinnik. Kyiv: UBS NBU. 2015, 609 p. (In Ukrainian).
60. Bachinska L. Ju. Bioethical problems of artificial insemination. Section 12. Fіlosofіja prava, Porіvnjal'no-analіtichne pravo. 2016, No 6. (In Ukrainian).
61. Voronina I. S. Legal Framework of Creation and Functioning of Biobanks (Biorepositories) in Ukraine. Law & Innovative Soc. 2014, P. 59. (In Ukrainian).
62. Ulucan K. Is CRISPR a fear Against Sports. Arch. Sports Med. Physiother. 2017, 2 (1), 016–017. https://doi.org/10.17352/asmp.000006
63. Glannon W. Genes and future people: Philosophical issues in human genetics. Routledge. 2018. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429500237
64. Volarevic V., Markovic B. S., Gazdic M., Volarevic A, Jovicic N., Arsenijevic N., Armstrong L, Djonov V., Lako M., Stojkovic M. Ethical and Safety Issues of Stem Cell-Based Therapy. Int. J. Med. Sci. 2018, 15 (1), 36–45. Published 2018 Jan 1. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.21666
65. Coleman S. The ethics of artificial uteruses: Implications for reproduction and abortion. Routledge. 2017. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351146807
66. Tretiakova V. G. Legal regulation of bioethical problems in the context of application of international and European standards. Kyiv: Parlamentske vidavnitstvo. (In Ukrainian).
67. Maleshina A. Taking Human Reproductive Rights Seriously: The Russian Perspective. Rus. Law J. 2020, 8 (1), 25–59. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2020-8-1-25-59