TY - JOUR T1 - Should mitochondrial replacement therapy be funded by the National Health Service? JF - Journal of Medical Ethics JO - J Med Ethics DO - 10.1136/medethics-2019-106053 SP - medethics-2019-106053 AU - Sophie Rhys-Evans Y1 - 2020/06/23 UR - http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2020/06/23/medethics-2019-106053.abstract N2 - A clinical trial on mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT) is currently being conducted and if this technique proves effective, National Health Service (NHS) England will fund MRT through the highly specialised services (HSS) funding stream. This paper considers whether MRT should be publicly funded by the NHS. Given the current financial pressure the NHS is experiencing, a comprehensive discussion is essential. There is yet to be a thorough discussion on MRT funding, perhaps because this is a small-scale issue and presumed to be covered by the HSS budget. However, the source of funding has not been confirmed due to the trial’s incompletion. Upon its completion, reasoned decisions need to be made over the allocation of scarce NHS resources. It is therefore important to consider the following arguments in advance. Three arguments given against NHS funding of MRT will be evaluated. The first argument against NHS funding examines the HSS overspending its budget in an underfunded NHS, suggesting funding must be carefully reprioritised. Second, the ethical issue of allowing public access to a technique with insufficient evidence behind it will be explored. The final point considers the option of privately funding MRT and how this would affect the treatment’s development. After illustrating the weaknesses of such arguments, it will be concluded that MRT should be funded by the NHS. ER -