César Palacios González

In response to the COVID‐19 pandemic philosophers and governments have proposed scarce resource allocation guidelines. Their purpose is to advise healthcare professionals on how to ethically allocate scarce medical resources. One challenging feature of the pandemic has been the large numbers of patients needing mechanical ventilatory support. Guidelines have paradigmatically focused on the question of what doctors should do if they have fewer ventilators than patients who need respiratory support: which patient should get the ventilator? There is, however, an important higher level allocation problem. Namely, how are we to ethically distribute newly obtained ventilators across hospitals: which hospital should get the ventilator(s)? In this paper, we identify a set of principles for allocating newly obtained ventilators across hospitals. We focus particularly on low and middle income countries, who frequently have limited pre‐existing intensive care capacity, and have needed to source additional ventilators. We first provide some background. Second, we argue that the main population healthcare aim during the COVID‐19 pandemic should be to save the most lives. Next, we assess a series of potential heuristics or principles that could be used to guide allocation: allocation to the most densely populated cities, random allocation, allocation based on the ratio of patients to ICU personnel, prioritisation in terms of intrahospital mortality, prioritisation of younger populations, and prioritisation in terms of population mortality. We conclude by providing a plausible ranking of the principles, while noting a number of epistemological challenges, in terms of how they best further the aim of increasing the probability of saving the most lives.

This issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics contains articles on the ethics of: xenotransplantation; the UN and ethical approval for research with human participants; medical assistance in dying; person-centred care; genomic healthcare; the obligations of the health system; rescue ethics; ethical preparedness; and mitochondrial replacement techniques. In this editorial, I want to focus on a timely article by Kögel et al on how a multicriteria approach to patient selection would look like when considering the first clinical trials of cardiac xenotransplantation.1 The ethics of xenotransplantation has come, again, to the fore after a series of gene-edited heart and kidney pig organs were transplanted to humans in 2022, 2023 and 2024. All patients survived the operations, but sadly, of the five patients who received an organ four have died.2–6 I have no doubt that with research in xenotransplantation gaining steam, biomedical researchers and policymakers will look to medical ethicists for guidance on several matters that …

Monika Piotrowska has defended a new account of reproduction. Her account seems able to answer the question of whether reproduction takes place, and who reproduces, when we employ biotechnologies that bear little to no resemblance to naturally occurring human sexual reproduction. Piotrowska's account also seems to increase our understanding of biological individuality and seems to be compatible with the theory of evolution via natural selection. In this paper, I do two things. First, I show that Piotrowska's account is found wanting, because it is extensionally inadequate. Second, I show that her criticism of James Grisemer's account of reproduction is mistaken.

Abstract Background The first live birth following the use of a new reproductive technique, maternal spindle transfer (MST), which is a mitochondrial replacement technique (MRT), was accomplished by dividing the execution of the MST procedure between two countries, the USA and Mexico. This was done in order to avoid US legal restrictions on this technique. Sources of data Academic articles, news articles, documents obtained through freedom of information requests, laws, regulations and national reports. Areas of agreement MRTs are new reproductive techniques that present novel ethical and legal challenges, since genetic material from three people is employed to create a child. Areas of controversy Could the first MST procedure that culminated in a live birth negatively impact reproductive medicine in Mexico? Growing points The USA and Mexico need specific and clear legislation on MRTs, in order for such techniques not to be governed by prior existing legislation on assisted reproduction that is inadequate for dealing with the new challenges that these techniques present. Areas timely for developing research There is a pressing need for work to be done on the international governance of new reproductive techniques.

The United Kingdom is the first and so far only country to pass explicit legislation allowing for the licensed use of the new reproductive technology known as mitochondrial replacement therapy. The techniques used in this technology may prevent the transmission of mitochondrial DNA diseases, but they are controversial because they involve the manipulation of oocytes or embryos and the transfer of genetic material. Some commentators have even suggested that MRT constitutes germline genome modification. All eyes were on the United Kingdom as the most likely location for the first MRT birth, so it was a shock when, on September 27, 2016, an announcement went out that the first baby to result from use of the intervention had already been born. In New York City, United States-based scientist John Zhang used maternal spindle transfer to generate five embryos for a woman carrying oocytes with deleterious mutations of the mitochondrial DNA. Zhang then shipped the only euploid embryo to Mexico, where it was transferred to the mother's uterus. Zhang's team's travel across international borders to carry out experimental procedures represents a form of scientific tourism that has not been properly ethically explored; it can, however, have seriously detrimental effects for developing countries.

Mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs) are a new group of biotechnologies that aim to aid women whose eggs have disease-causing deleteriously mutated mitochondria to have genetically related healthy children. These techniques have also been used to aid women with poor oocyte quality and poor embryonic development, to have genetically related children. Remarkably, MRTs create humans with DNA from three sources: nuclear DNA from the intending mother and father, and mitochondrial DNA from the egg donor. In a recent publication Françoise Baylis argued that MRTs are detrimental for genealogical research via mitochondrial DNA because they would obscure the lines of individual descent. In this paper, I argue that MRTs do not obscure genealogical research, but rather that MRT-conceived children can have two mitochondrial lineages. I argue for this position by showing that MRTs are reproductive in nature and, thus, they create genealogy.

In a recent publication Tom Douglas and Katrien Devolder have proposed a new account of genetic parenthood, building on the work of Heidi Mertes. Douglas and Devolder’s account aims to solve, among other things, the question of who are the genetic parents of an individual created through somatic cell nuclear transfer (i.e. cloning): (a) the nuclear DNA provider or (b) the progenitors of the nuclear DNA provider. Such a question cannot be answered by simply appealing to the folk account of genetic parenthood, according to which the genetic parents of an individual are those individuals who produced the egg and sperm, respectively, which fused to create the embryo. It cannot be so as in cloning there is no fertilization as such. In this article I critically examine Douglas and Devolder’s new account of genetic parenthood and demonstrate that it is vulnerable to counterexamples that exploit the lack of a condition specifying that genetic parents should cause a child’s coming into existence.