Impact of legal measures prevent transplant tourism: the interrelated experience of The Philippines and Israel

We describe the parallel changes that have taken place in recent years in two countries, Israel and The Philippines, the former once an "exporter" of transplant tourists and the latter once an "importer" of transplant tourists. These changes were in response to progressive legislation in both countries under the influence of the Declaration of Istanbul. The annual number of Israeli patients who underwent kidney transplantation abroad decreased from a peak of 155 in 2006 to an all-time low of 35 in 2011 while in the Philippines the annual number of foreign transplant recipients fell from 531 in 2007 to two in 2011. The experience of these two countries provides a "natural experiment" on the potential impact of legal measures to prevent transplant tourism.

The declaration of Istanbul in the Philippines: success with foreigners but a continuing challenge for local transplant tourism

The Philippine government officially responded to the Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and the related WHO Guidelines on organ transplantation by prohibiting all transplants to foreigners using Filipino organs. However, local tourists have escaped the regulatory radar, leaving a very wide gap in efforts against human trafficking and transplant tourism. Authorities need to deal with the situation seriously, at a minimum, by issuing clear procedures for verifying declarations of kinship or emotional bonds between donors and recipients. Foreigners who come to the country for transplants with same-nationality donors constitute a problem that is replicated in many transplant centers around the world. Also, emotionally related living donors continue to pose challenges for ethics committees, especially because of the realities associated with the existence of extended families. Those who find themselves facing these issues need to be armed with clear protocols for going through the process of verifying documents and individual declarations assiduously. There is also a need for international referral mechanisms at least to ensure that governments are aware when their citizens travel for transplant so they can take steps they consider suitable to address the vulnerabilities of exploited persons.

Non-standard kidneys for transplants: clinical margins, medical morality, and the law

Advances in kidney transplantation over the past six decades have been impressive, but have not eliminated the significant variability in outcome related to donor organ quality. Organ shortage means that, in addition to 'standard' deceased donor kidneys (SD), 'non-standard donor' (NSD), 'expanded criteria donor', or 'marginal' kidneys, which fail to meet standard criteria and are often associated with less good outcomes, are now being transplanted into selected recipients as a means of increasing the donor pool. A similar, but less-documented, practice has developed in living donation. This article outlines the clinical rationale and ethical argument underpinning the use of such donor kidneys and examines their legal status in the UK, which we claim remains largely undefined and untested. While it is probable that the general principles governing medico-legal consent and liability also apply to organ donation, the special circumstances of donation, notably the inadequate supply of donors and the emphasis on a 'gift relationship', make it difficult to know how far existing medico-legal precedents can or should apply. The non-standard status of deceased donor organs creates potential problems for the validity of 'appropriate consent' to donation required by statute. It may also be relevant to the use of interventions intended to optimise deceased donor organ quality. Furthermore, the SD/NSD distinction in clinical practice may produce unexpected legal effects. For example, the recent UK Regulations 2012, which bring into force the EU Directive on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation, could produce a negative legal restraint on the use of NSD kidneys. There is an urgent need for clarification of the effect of using NSDs in areas such as recipient and donor consent, liability for negligence, and the law of product liability.  Some argue that the need for non-standard organs results from society's failure to compel the retrieval of all suitable standard organs from the deceased as a community resource. However, the Human Tissue Acts of 2004 and 2006 (Scotland), which govern organ donation and transplantation in the UK, expressly require individual consent or authorisation in the decision to donate. This emphasis on individual autonomy appears to chime with prevailing public opinion. However, the sense of medico-legal security gained by uncritical observance of the existing law and of directives published under its authority may be an obstacle to the development of a system which adequately meets the needs of recipients while safeguarding donor autonomy.

This is my kidney, I should be able to do with it what I want: towards a legal framework for organ transplants in South Africa

In 2010 illegal kidney transplants performed in South African hospitals were exposed. Living donors (actually sellers) from Brazil and Romania were flown into South Africa where a kidney was harvested from each and transplanted into Israeli patients. The media reports that followed indicated an outcry against the sale of human kidneys. But by analysing the whole transplantation process from the point of view of each person involved in the transplantation, namely the recipient, the donor, the doctor and the black market in the background the feeling is created that a process of payment for a kidney seems fairer than the current way of procuring organs either legally or illegally.

The global role of kidney transplantation

World Kidney Day on March 8th 2012 provides a chance to reflect on the success of kidney transplantation as a therapy for end-stage kidney disease that surpasses dialysis treatments both for the quality and quantity of life that it provides and for its cost effectiveness. Anything that is both cheaper and better, but is not actually the dominant therapy, must have other drawbacks that prevent replacement of all dialysis treatment by transplantation. The barriers to universal transplantation as the therapy for end-stage kidney disease include the economic limitations which, in some countries place transplantation, appropriately, at a lower priority than public health fundamentals such as clean water, sanitation, and vaccination. Even in high-income countries, the technical challenges of surgery and the consequences of immunosuppression restrict the number of suitable recipients, but the major finite restrictions on kidney transplantation rates are the shortage of donated organs and the limited medical, surgical, and nursing workforces with the required expertise. These problems have solutions which involve the full range of societal, professional, governmental, and political environments. World Kidney Day is a call to deliver transplantation therapy to the one million people a year who have a right to benefit.

The global role of kidney transplantation

World Kidney Day on March 8 th 2012 provides a chance to reflect on the success of kidney transplantation as a therapy for end stage kidney disease that surpasses dialysis treatments both for the quality and quantity of life that it provides and for its cost effectiveness. Anything that is both cheaper and better, but is not actually the dominant therapy, must have other drawbacks that prevent replacement of all dialysis treatment by transplantation. The barriers to universal transplantation as the therapy for end stage kidney disease include the economic limitations which, in some countries place transplantation, appropriately, at a lower priority than public health fundamentals such as clean water, sanitation and vaccination. Even in high income countries the technical challenges of surgery and the consequences of immunosuppression restrict the number of suitable recipients, but the major finite restrictions on kidney transplantation rates are the shortage of donated organs and the limited medical, surgical and nursing workforces with the required expertise. These problems have solutions which involve the full range of societal, professional, governmental and political environments. World Kidney Day is a call to deliver transplantation therapy to the one million people a year who have a right to benefit.

The global role of kidney transplantation

World Kidney Day on March 8th 2012 provides a chance to reflect on the success of kidney transplantation as a therapy for end stage kidney disease that surpasses dialysis treatments both for the quality and quantity of life that it provides and for its cost effectiveness. Anything that is both cheaper and better, but is not actually the dominant therapy, must have other drawbacks that prevent replacement of all dialysis treatment by transplantation. The barriers to universal transplantation as the therapy for end stage kidney disease include the economic limitations which, in some countries place transplantation, appropriately, at a lower priority than public health fundamentals such as clean water, sanitation and vaccination. Even in high income countries the technical challenges of surgery and the consequences of immunosuppression restrict the number of suitable recipients, but the major finite restrictions on kidney transplantation rates are the shortage of donated organs and the limited medical, surgical and nursing workforces with the required expertise. These problems have solutions which involve the full range of societal, professional, governmental and political environments. World Kidney Day is a call to deliver transplantation therapy to the one million people a year who have a right to benefit.

Pakistan's kidney trade: an overview of the 2007 'Transplantation of Human Organs and Human Tissue Ordinance.' To what extent will it curb the trade?

Pakistan has the unenviable reputation for being one of the world's leading 'transplant tourism' destinations, largely the buying and selling of kidneys from its impoverished population to rich international patients. After nearly two decades of pressure to formally prohibit the trade, the Government of Pakistan promulgated the 'Transplantation of Human Organs and Human Tissue Ordinance' (THOTO) in 2007. This was then passed by Senate and enshrined in law in March 2010. This paper gives a brief overview of the organ trade within Pakistan and analyses the criteria of THOTO in banning the widespread practise. It then goes on to answer: 'To what extent will THOTO succeed in curbing Pakistan's kidney trade?' This is aided by the use of a comparative case study looking at India's failed organ trade legislation. This paper concludes THOTO has set a strong basis for curbing Pakistan's kidney trade. However, for this to be successfully achieved, it needs to be implemented with strong and sustained political will, strict and efficient enforcement as well as effective monitoring and evaluation. Efforts are needed to tackle both 'supply' and 'demand' factors of Pakistan's kidney trade, with developed countries also having a responsibility to reduce the flow of citizens travelling to Pakistan to purchase a kidney.

Custom, contract, and kidney exchange

In this Essay, we examine a case in which the organizational and logistical demands of a novel form of organ exchange (the nonsimultaneous, extended, altruistic donor (NEAD) chain) do not map cleanly onto standard cultural schemas for either market or gift exchange, resulting in sociological ambiguity and legal uncertainty. In some ways, a NEAD chain resembles a form of generalized exchange, an ancient and widespread instance of the norm of reciprocity that can be thought of simply as the obligation to “pay it forward” rather than the obligation to reciprocate directly with the original giver. At the same time, a NEAD chain resembles a string of promises and commitments to deliver something in exchange for some valuable consideration--that is, a series of contracts. Neither of these salient "social imaginaries" of exchange--gift giving or formal contract--perfectly meets the practical demands of the NEAD system. As a result, neither contract nor generalized exchange drives the practice of NEAD chains. Rather, the majority of actual exchanges still resemble a simpler form of exchange: direct, simultaneous exchange between parties with no time delay or opportunity to back out. If NEAD chains are to reach their full promise for large-scale, nonsimultaneous organ transfer, legal uncertainties and sociological ambiguities must be finessed, both in the practices of the coordinating agencies and in the minds of NEAD-chain participants. This might happen either through the further elaboration of gift-like language and practices, or through a creative use of the cultural form and motivational vocabulary, but not necessarily the legal and institutional machinery, of contract.