Reality says, brother is also young and to lead whole life with one kidney is a great risk.
The patient is only 19 years of age, considering the age criterion; it is the prime responsibility of the physician to save her life. Under these circumstances, when there was not any choice of the therapy, a ray of hope came from GENOTECH.
Situations like this has paved the way for breakthroughs in research and therefore more biotechnology companies are coming forward for reawakening of interest in xenotransplantation. The spotlight of ethical consideration has been altered from the moral accuracy of using animals for research/ therapy to treasured risk of xenozoonoses in recipients. This is not well accepted so far. The restriction has been posed by the United Kingdom on clinical trials and a national regulatory authority has been established to supervise and organize the progress of research, create guidelines, and make a decision on when trials can proceed. On the contrary, the United States has promoted the research in the direction of "proceed with caution," and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has given approval for a large number of xenotransplant studies. The Public Health Service guidelines laid down strategies to reduce infection risk and these guidelines are still underway and are evolving to wind up with cautious approach (Daar, 1997).
In the present case, the GENOTECH has emerged as a helping hand to this family. The patient cannot be allowed for euthanasia to spare the suffering of the patient or her family. The family must take the risk of transplanting GENOTECH'S product for transplanting kidney. There are chances that infections may spread from the recipient to contacts and later to the public. It is of much concern to the whole human population and not the patient alone. It is therefore imperative that the company must go through the rigorous checking of the product for any kind of microbial infection before the transplantation is made in order to protect the disaster. The motive in the present scenario is therapy, but practically performing is different, moreover laboratory conditions are different than in reality, inside the human body. So areas of concern are animal issues and risk of infection, but the success of this transplantation will renovate transplantation ethics to reality.
There has to be some initiative for the success of technology. For these new technologies it has been hypothesized that they are going to eliminate the clinical and immunological obstacles which have made transplantation an excessively expensive therapeutic venture. Optimism inspires us but when it results in defeat it tempers our hopes and also the reality (Platt, 2001). Therefore we have to check the technology for its fool proof results.
The alternative to the present situation is long-term dialysis.
Darr, A. S. (1997). Ethics of Xenotransplantation: Animal Issues, Consent and Likely Transformation of Transplant Ethics World. J. Surg 21. 975-982.
Evans, R. J. (2001). Coming to Terms with Reality: Why Xenotransplantation Is a Necessity. Chapter 2. Xenotransplantation. 29-55.
Scenario # 2
The cultural and moral ethics are diminishing due to changing