Abstract
This paper examines whether there are moral differences between the mitochondrial replacement techniques that have been recently developed in order to help women afflicted by mitochondrial DNA diseases to have genetically related children absent such conditions: maternal spindle transfer (MST) and pronuclear transfer (PNT). Firstly, it examines whether there is a moral difference between MST and PNT in terms of the divide between somatic interventions and germline interventions. Secondly, it considers whether PNT and MST are morally distinct under a therapy/creation optic. Finally, it investigates whether there is a moral difference between MST and PNT from a human embryo destruction point of view. I conclude, contra recent arguments, that regarding the first two points there is no moral differences between PNT and MST; and that regarding the third one MST is morally preferable to PNT, but only if we hold a gradualist account of the moral value of human embryos where zygotes have slight moral value.
Highlights
Mitochondrial DNA diseases occur when problems within the genes of the mitochondria prevent them from producing the levels of energy cells need to work properly
I conclude, contra recent arguments, that regarding the first two points there is no moral differences between pronuclear transfer (PNT) and maternal spindle transfer (MST); and that regarding the third one MST is morally preferable to PNT, but only if we hold a gradualist account of the moral value of human embryos where zygotes have slight moral value
When we focus on this issue a clear difference between both mitochondrial replacement techniques2 (MRTs) becomes evident: the medical practice of PNT requires the destruction of an embryo, whereas the MST one only requires the destruction of an unfertilized egg
Summary
Mitochondrial DNA diseases (mtDNA diseases) occur when problems within the genes of the mitochondria prevent them from producing the levels of energy cells need to work properly. It must be said that Wrigley et al.’s position regarding ‘the process of PNT’ (which entails the enucleation, transfer and reconstitution actions) is correct, in that it does not causally affect the identity of the intending parents’ would be enucleated zygote.7 It does not do so because a particular sperm and egg had already fused prior to the process of PNT taking place. The medical practice of PNT is not ‘doubly’ identity affecting but ‘single’ identity affecting This entails that even when we do not have harmavoidance reasons for offering as a reproductive option PNT over MST, once we have decided for PNT and we have produced an embryo, the process of PNT can make an individual better off or worse off. If during the process of PNT there was enough mutant mtDNA carryover so for the disease to manifest, in addition to the procedure causing lifelong extreme pain, the process of PNT would make L worse off than she would have been if the intervention did not occur, since absent the intervention L would only suffer from a mild mtDNA disease. ,
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
