Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2014, Article ID 480304, 9 pages
Research Article

A Survey of Italian Physicians' Opinion about Stem Cells Research: What Doctors Prefer and What the Law Requires

1Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic and Orthopaedic Sciences, University of Rome La Sapienza, Viale Regina Elena 336, 00161 Rome, Italy
2Istituto Neurologico Mediterraneo, Neuromed, IRCCS, 86170 Isernia, Italy
3Department of Obstetric Gynaecological and Urological Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy
4Legal Medicine Unit, Hospital “Campo di Marte”, 55100 Lucca, Italy
5Italian National Institute of Statistics, 34 Via Caduta del Forte, 65121 Pescara, Italy

Received 22 January 2014; Revised 25 March 2014; Accepted 4 April 2014; Published 30 April 2014

Academic Editor: Giacomo Frati

Copyright © 2014 Paola Frati et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. P. Frati, G. Frati, M. Gulino, G. Montanari Vergallo, A. Di Luca, and V. Fineschi, “Stem cell therapy: from evidence-based medicine to emotion-based medicine? The long Italian way for a scientific regulation,” Stem Cells Research and Therapy, vol. 4, no. 5, p. 122, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  2. A. D. Lyerly, S. Nakagawa, and M. Kuppermann, “Decisional conflict and the disposition of frozen embryos: implications for informed consent,” Human Reproduction, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 646–654, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. T. S. Dee, “Are there civic returns to education?” Journal of Public Economics, vol. 88, no. 9-10, pp. 1697–1720, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. G. Corbellini, “Scientists, bioethics and democracy: the Italian case and its meanings,” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 349–352, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. S. Kriks, J.-W. Shim, J. Piao et al., “Dopamine neurons derived from human ES cells efficiently engraft in animal models of Parkinson's disease,” Nature, vol. 480, no. 7378, pp. 547–551, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. V. Fineschi, M. Neri, and E. Turillazzi, “The new Italian law on assisted reproduction technology (Law 40-2004),” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 536–539, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. M. Gulino, A. Pacchiarotti, G. Montanari Vergallo, and P. Frati P, “Is age the limit for human-assisted reproduction techniques? “Yes', said an Italian judge”,” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 250–252, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  8. A. Pacchiarotti, G. N. Milazzo, A. Biasiotta et al., “Pain in the upper anterior-lateral part of the thigh in women affected by endometriosis: study of sensitive neuropathy,” Fertility Sterility, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 122–126, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  9. G. Ricci, A. Conti, M. Paternoster, and P. Buccelli, “The collection and conservation in Italy of stem cells from umbilical cord blood,” Medicine and Law, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 387–400, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. Italian Ministerial Decree n. 42886/2009.
  11. A. A. Theodosiou and M. H. Johnson, “The politics of human embryo research and the motivation to achieve PGD,” Reproductive BioMedicine Online, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 457–471, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. Dulbecco's Commission, Final Report on stem cells, December 2000.
  13. Italian National Bioethics Committee, “Opinion of National Bioethics Committee on the therapeutic use of stem cells,” October 2000,
  14. Italian National Bioethics Committee, “The destiny of the Embryos deriving from Medical Assisted Reproduction and not implantable,” October 2007,
  15. “Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine,” Oviedo, 4.IV.1997,
  16. “Council Decision 2006/975/EC concerning Seventh Framework Programme,” December 2006,
  17. A. Pacchiarotti, H. Selman, V. Gentile et al., “First case of transformation for breast fibroadenoma to high-grade malignant phyllodes tumor in an in vitro fertilization patient: misdiagnosis of recurrence, treatment and review of the literature,” European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, vol. 17, no. 18, pp. 2495–2498, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  18. S. Penasa, “The need for a procedural approach to human embryonic stem cell research: an emerging regulatory model within EU,” Dilemata, no. 7, pp. 39–55, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  19. D. G. Jones and C. R. Towns, “Navigating the quagmire: the regulation of human embryonic stem cell research,” Human Reproduction, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1113–1116, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. A. Elstner, A. Damaschun, A. Kurtz et al., “The changing landscape of European and international regulation on embryonic stem cell research,” Stem Cell Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 101–107, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. E. Turillazzi and V. Fineschi, “Assisted reproductive technology: official data on the application of the Italian law,” Reproductive BioMedicine Online, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 5–9, 2008. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. The Constitution of the Republic of Poland, April 1997,
  23. “Reproductive Medicine Act Amendment,” 2004,
  24. “French Law no. 2013-715,”
  25. “Embryo Protection Act (Embryonenschutzgesetz),” 1991,
  26. “Portuguese Law no. 32/2006 on medically assisted procreation,”
  27. K. L. Belew, “Stem cell division: abortion law and its influence on the adoption of radically different embryonic stem cell legislation in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany,” Texas International Law Journal, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 479–519, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. “French Law no. 2011-814,”
  29. “Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act no. 37/1990,”
  30. “Human Fertilisation And Embryology Act no. 188/2001,”
  31. R. Morgan, “Embryonic stem cells and consent: incoherence and inconsistency in the UK regulatory model,” Medical Law Review, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 279–319, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. G. Pennings, “New Belgian law on research on human embryos: trust in progress through medical science,” Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 343–346, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. “Activities Involving Human Eggs for Research or Treatment Purposes Act,” 1991,
  34. “Greek Law on Medically Assisted Human Reproduction,” 2002,
  35. “Act on Research on Human Embryonic Stem Cells and Related Activities and on Amendment to Some Related Acts no. 227/2006,”
  36. “The Federal Act on Research Involving Embryonic Stem Cells,” 2003,
  37. S. de Lacey, W. Rogers, A. Braunack-Mayer, J. Avery, D. Smith, and B. Richards, “Perceptions of embryo status and embryo use in an Australian community,” Reproductive BioMedicine Online, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 727–744, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. “Oliver Brustle v Greenpeace,” Court of Justice of the European Union, October 2011, no. C-34/10,
  39. J. Whitehill, “Patenting human embryonic stem cells: what is so immoral?” Brooklyn Journal of International Law, vol. 34, pp. 1045–1080, 2009. View at Google Scholar
  40. R. M. Isasi and B. M. Knoppers, “Beyond the permissibility of embryonic and stem cell research: substantive requirements and procedural safeguards,” Human Reproduction, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 2474–2481, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. Eurobarometer, “Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends,” July 2006,
  42. V. Provoost, G. Pennings, P. De Sutter, A. Van De Velde, and M. Dhont, “Trends in embryo disposition decisions: patients' responses to a 15-year mailing program,” Human Reproduction, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 506–514, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. T. McIntire, “Legal issues of stem cell transplantation and the family,” The University of Memphis law review, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 727–747, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus