ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: French laypeople's views on xenotransplantation were examined. METHODS: A convenience sample of 224 adults (among them, 37 nurses) judged of the acceptability of xenotransplantation in 50 realistic scenarios composed of various combinations of 4 factors: 1. the type of graft (eg, pig cardiac valve), 2. the level of urgency (eg, critical condition with very high risk of death in the short term), 3. the patient's or the family's level of consent (eg, the members of the family are divided on the issue), and 4. whether the transplantation was temporary or definitive. The ratings were subjected to cluster analysis and analyses of variance. RESULTS: Seven qualitatively different positions were found that were termed Never acceptable (12%), Urgency (4%), Family consent (33%), Religious concerns (15%), Family consent and urgency (10%), Depends on all circumstances (4%), and Always acceptable (11%). Vegans and vegetarians expressed the Never acceptable position more often than nonvegetarians. Health professionals expressed the Family consent position more often than the public. Regular church attendees expressed the Religious concerns position more often than atheists did. CONCLUSIONS: Few participants, mostly vegetarians, were opposed to xenotransplantation on principle. About one-third expressed positive views regarding xenotransplantation, either irrespective of circumstances or at least in those cases in which the patient's death is imminent and the family is not opposed for religious reasons. About one-half expressed positive views but deferred to the wishes of the family. The type of xenograft proposed had practically no effect on participants' views.
