Abstract
Context and Objectives
Whether the fact that a transplanted organ is non-human would affect acceptance levels among potential recipients of heart and heart-lung xenografts has not been determined. Studies in renal patients have produced contradictory results. Furthermore, no previous studies have examined the attitudes toward xenotransplantation among the chief caregivers of potential transplant recipients.
Participants and Measures
Fifty-nine patients and 54 caregivers responded to a questionnaire that requested their views on xenotransplantation, the source and level of their knowledge about xenotransplantation, and the perceived costs and benefits of this intervention. Patients' and caregivers' attitudes to animal experimentation and killing animals for human benefit were also assessed by using a specifically designed attitude questionnaire.
Results
Fifty-six percent of patients and 48% of caregivers were unsure about xenotransplantation. Seventy-nine percent of patients and 85% of caregivers indicated that they had received little or no information about xenotransplantation, and what information they had received was from nonmedical sources. Availability of organs was the main perceived benefit (36% of patients and 40% of caregivers) and ethical and moral issues were the main perceived cost (20% of patients and 25% of caregivers). Overall patients and caregivers were in agreement with animal experimentation and killing animals for human benefit.
Conclusions
Potential heart and heart-lung recipients and their caregivers have limited information about xenotransplantation and are currently unsure about the acceptability of this procedure. Although this uncertainty may be due to their lack of information about this intervention, it may also reflect concerns about the morality of breeding animals solely to provide organs for transplantation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.