By Dr Audrey Jarvis, Chairperson of the Interchurch Bioethics Council
Xenotransplantation is the name given to animal to human transplantation, when living cells, tissues or organs are taken from a non-human animal and transferred into a person, with the intention that they will become a living part of that person. Toi te Taiao: the Bioethics Council, whose role is to advise the New Zealand government, has been consulting with the community as to whether xenotransplantation should be permitted in New Zealand.
Xenotransplantation raises religious and cultural issues, related to the mixing of human and non-human DNA, and indeed asks the question “what is it to be human?” Being human is frequently taken to mean that we are made in the image of God, but what this means will depend on our concept of God: a personal Being, a Creator, our collective unconsciousness, a Being from whom we expect divine intervention, a Being who gives us freewill and therefore responsibility for our own actions. In Christianity, and in other world religions, being human includes being able to love, an awareness of the non-material aspects of life, an ability to look back at history and to look forward to the future, to ponder on our place in the world, to have a sense of stewardship for the world and belief in a duty of care for the environment.
We need to ask ourselves: “do we feel comfortable or concerned about cells of another species living within our human selves?” It has been shown that when human stem cells were transferred into sheep, they were disseminated so that cells containing human DNA were found throughout the sheep. This impinges on our ideas of what it means to be human. We believe there are significant ways in which we differ from other animals, and that this might well affect how we feel about having a living part of an animal eg. a pig, within us. If we believe in the integrity of species, which is after all the theme behind the conservation movement, then we will see value in preserving species. We will be less willing to agree that we mix our DNA with that from different species, and will demand that there be a limit to the extent to which the human body may be modified by animal transplants.
Probably the best known example of animal to human transfer is that of transferring pig pancreatic cells to a person who is diabetic, so that the pig cells produce insulin and remove the need for insulin injections. Other examples of what may be possible in the future are organ transplants, and the use of neural cells from animals to treat such human ailments as Parkinson’s disease, brain and spinal injury. Pigs, which are the most commonly used animals in xenotransplantation procedures, contain endogenous viruses which cause no problems in the pig, but there is concern that they may cause disease in the human population. As long as the magnitude of this risk is undetermined, the possible benefit of xenotransplantation to an individual must be balanced against any possible risk to the community and therefore the environment.
We suggest we could direct more of our resources on developing human to human transfer of organs/cells/tissues, where there are fewer ethical, cultural and scientific problems. We should also see the use of human stem cells as a potential mechanism for repair of organs or tissues, particularly as recent work suggests that adult stem cells could be used, rather than cells from embryos which may be seen as potential human beings.
When we think of transplantation and other technologies which may be beneficial, we remember that compassion is part of our Christian doctrine, and may see this as a creative response to a human problem, using our God-given abilities. But how much is it a response to our seeming inability to accept that we are mortal, and death is part of life? We must set limits to the measures we are willing to take to postpone death, keeping in mind the costs to society and the limits of our resources and the need to respect the ethical, cultural and spiritual values of the community.
With a background in agricultural science, Dr Jarvis has been chairperson of the Interchurch Bioethics Council since its inception in 2000 and has presented the Council’s views to relevant government ministers and officials. She has been actively involved in medical ethics both at regional and national levels since 1990, and during this time has made submissions to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification and on numerous Government bills and public discussion documents.
More information about the bioethics and the xenotransplantation debate can be found at www.bioethics.org.nz