Abstract

Mitochondrial donation (MD) is a reproductive technique that aims to allow individuals at-risk of having a child with mitochondrial DNA disease avoid this outcome. Research to inform possible clinical use of MD is underway in Australia and births following the use of this technique have been announced in the United Kingdom. However, how the availability of MD will be funded in the mid- to long-term remains uncertain. One factor impacting funding decisions is public sentiment, yet there is scant evidence globally regarding attitudes toward MD funding. We sought to discern attitudes of informed members of the Australian public to how the provision of MD should be funded. We held three community juries to gauge public views on how MD should be funded. A community jury involves providing a diverse group of citizens with expert testimony and facilitating deliberation to arrive at a position. Forty-two jurors participated across three juries. All juries voted by majority to support public funding for MD. Each jury made slightly different funding choices: one preferred full public funding, another preferred co-payment, while the third was divided among full public funding, co-payment, and no public funding. Reasons in favour of public funding comprised value for money, equity (i.e., the fair and just distribution of MD) and promoting innovation. Reasons against were opportunity cost, that MD wasn’t necessary, and ethical objections to MD. Jurors also devised conditions for future funding: external review, capped services, better funding for alternative interventions and means testing. Should the current Australian MD research trial enable clinical provision, assuming that our participants’ views are consistent with those of most Australians when informed of the trade-offs, benefits and costs, then it is likely that there will be strong public support for governments to fund access. However, some people may object to this expenditure.