Ethical evaluation of risks related to living donor transplantation programs

Risk Assessment and Management for Potential Living Kidney Donors: The Role of “Third-Party” Commission

Living kidney donation is the most common type of living-donor transplant. Italian guidelines allow the living donations from emotionally related donors only after clear and voluntary consent expressed by both the donor and the recipient involved. Living donation raises ethical and legal issues because donors voluntarily undergo a surgical procedure to remove a healthy kidney in order to help another person. According to the Italian standards, the assessment of living donor-recipient pair has to be conducted by a medical “third party”, completely independent from both the patients involved and the medical team treating the recipient. Starting from the Hospital “Città della Salute e della Scienza” of Turin (Italy) experience, including 116 living kidney donations, the Authors divided the evaluation process performed by the “Third-Party” Commission into four stages, with a particular attention to the potential donor. Living donation procedures should reflect fiduciary duties that healthcare providers have toward their patients, originating from the relationship of trust between physician and patient. In addition to that, the social implications are enormous if one considers the worldwide campaigns to promote public awareness about organ donation and transplantation, and to encourage people to register their organ donation decisions. The systematic process proposed here can be a tool that proactively reduces and controls the risks of coercion, organ trafficking, vitiated consent, insufficient weighting of donative choice, that could arise especially in donors involved in living kidney donation.

Liver Living Donation for Cancer Patients: Benefits, Risks, Justification

LDLT covers all standard indications for liver transplantation, and the results are similar or even better than for standard DDLT. Due to the donor shortage and long waiting time, LDLT has become a relevant option for patients with liver tumors, provided the expected five-year survival rate is comparable to that of patients receiving a DDLT. Nowadays, LDLT offers the possibility to extend the standard morphometric selection by considering the biological parameters. In the setting of LDLT, we are not only faced with surgical morbidity in the donor, but long-term non-medical problems like psychological complications and financial burden also have to be considered. On the other hand, the benefits to the donor are mainly social and psychological. In LDLT, the donor's altruism is the fundamental ethical principle and it is based on the principles of (1) beneficence (doing good), (2) non-maleficence (avoiding harm), (3) respect for autonomy, and (4) respect for justice (promoting fairness). On top of that, the concept of double equipoise of living organ donation evaluates the relationship between the recipient's need, the donor's risk, and the recipient's outcome. It considers each donor-recipient pair as a unit, analyzing whether the specific recipient's benefit justifies the specific donor's risk in particular oncologic indications. In this light, it is essential to seek adequate informed consent focused on risk, benefits and outcome benefits of both donor and recipient supported by an independent living donor advocate. Finally, the transplant team must protect donors from donation if harm does not justify the expected benefit to the recipient.

Ethical dilemmas related to living donor liver transplantation in Asia

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has evolved rapidly in Asia with good outcomes for both donor and recipient. Nonetheless, LDLT remains a highly demanding technique and complex surgery. The potential risks to the donors provide the basis for many of the ethical dilemmas associated with LDLT. The transplant team must have a good knowledge of the principles of bioethics in order to handle these matters. To look after the need, donor's safety and the chance for good recipient outcomes, the principles of respect for the donor's autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence should be practiced. In accordance with the concept of equipoise, the risk to the donor must balance the benefit to the recipient. The transplant center should have adequate experience and proven expertise in LDLT. There are concerns regarding the validity of informed consent given by the donor. While donations to non-relative patients may, at first sight, indicate radical altruism, it is important to apply careful scrutiny. Though organ trading is strictly prohibited by the law, there seems to be an inherent risk with directed donations to strangers. Transplant tourism has flourished in some countries in spite of the existence of strict laws. There are reservations regarding transplantation done by foreign visiting teams. Donor websites facilitating patients and donors and Facebook pages bear no responsibility for the outcomes of their matches and cannot ensure sufficient and accurate information about donation, transplantation, and post-operation life. Telemedicine and virtual consultations appeared to work better when the clinician and the patient know and trust each other.

Understanding the sex disparity in living kidney donation

Living donors are the preferred source of organs for kidney transplantation, which is the treatment modality of choice for end-stage kidney disease. Health care systems widely promote living kidney donation. However, women are consistently overrepresented among living donors. The reasons behind the sex-based disparity in living kidney donation remain poorly understood. Compared to women, men possess a greater amount of kidney function, and the higher deceased donation rate among men reflects their higher overall kidney quality. A plausible medical explanation for the sex-based disparity in living kidney donation includes an uncompromising emphasis on preserving donor health, with less emphasis placed on organ quality, which is the main criterion in deceased donor selection. On the other hand, consent to deceased donation is also greater in women, indicating their greater desire to donate even though fewer women actually become deceased donors. Therefore, nonmedical reasons for the sex disparity in living donation must be sought. Increased empathic distress or emotional memory; a greater sense of responsibility, urgency, and impulsiveness with increased reaction to empathy; a different body image; and a different social status may all contribute to greater living kidney donation in women. Economic inequity may be the singular explanation when personal worth links to economic worth. To better understand the sex disparity in living kidney donation, we need better data on the reasons behind both nondonation and donor rejection after evaluation in clinical practice. Nondirected living kidney donation provides unique opportunities to minimize factors such as emotional distress, empathy, and impulsiveness. More liberal acceptance criteria for donors with isolated medical abnormalities and testing legitimate donor reimbursement strategies based on actual income levels rather than a fixed amount can assist in both ascertaining the reasons behind the sex disparity in living kidney donation and increasing overall living kidney donation rates.

Should living donor liver transplantation be an option when deceased donation is not?

When a liver transplantation candidate is declined for listing to receive a deceased organ, sometimes a loved one comes forward and offers to be a living donor. This raises the ethical question of whether a patient who is not eligible for deceased donor liver transplantation should be eligible for living donor liver transplantation. We compare living organ donation in kidney and liver transplantation and explore key ethical concepts of justice, fairness, and societal trust. Ultimately, because there is no alternative life-preserving therapy in end-stage liver disease, and because transplantation with a living donor organ does not involve removing a resource from the common pool of transplant organs, we argue that a standard of "slightly less benefit" than that required for deceased transplantation should be used to determine the acceptability of living donor liver transplantation.

Emotional management and quality of life in mother living versus multi-organ donor renal transplant recipients

The aim of this study was to evaluate psychological differences and quality of life between kidney recipients from living (mother) and multi-organ donor. Overall, 40 patients who had undergone both living (mother) and multi-organ kidney transplantation 3-6 months before were asked to complete four self-report instruments: Toronto Alexithymia Scale, Short Form Health Survey, Regulatory Emotional Self-efficacy, and Attachment Style Questionnaire. A greater difficulty in emotional, social, and mental health functioning was found in recipients receiving kidney from mother living donor. Moreover, in these patients, higher levels of avoidant attachment dimensions were associated with a worse quality of life.

Lung transplantation: a treatment option in end-stage lung disease

BACKGROUND

Lung transplantation is the final treatment option in the end stage of certain lung diseases, once all possible conservative treatments have been exhausted. Depending on the indication for which lung transplantation is performed, it can improve the patient's quality of life (e.g., in emphysema) and/ or prolong life expectancy (e.g., in cystic fibrosis, pulmonary fibrosis, and pulmonary arterial hypertension). The main selection criteria for transplant candidates, aside from the underlying pulmonary or cardiopulmonary disease, are age, degree of mobility, nutritional and muscular condition, and concurrent extrapulmonary disease. The pool of willing organ donors is shrinking, and every sixth candidate for lung transplantation now dies while on the waiting list.

METHOD

We reviewed pertinent articles (up to October 2013) retrieved by a selective search in Medline and other German and international databases, including those of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT), Eurotransplant, the German Institute for Applied Quality Promotion and Research in Health-Care (Institut für angewandte Qualitätsförderung und Forschung im Gesundheitswesen, AQUA-Institut), and the German Foundation for Organ Transplantation (Deutsche Stiftung Organtransplantation, DSO).

RESULTS

The short- and long-term results have markedly improved in recent years: the 1-year survival rate has risen from 70.9% to 82.9%, and the 5-year survival rate from 46.9% to 59.6%. The 90-day mortality is 10.0%. The postoperative complications include acute (3.4%) and chronic (29.0%) transplant rejection, infections (38.0%), transplant failure (24.7%), airway complications (15.0%), malignant tumors (15.0%), cardiovascular events (10.9%), and other secondary extrapulmonary diseases (29.8%). Bilateral lung transplantation is superior to unilateral transplantation (5-year survival rate 57.3% versus 47.4%).

CONCLUSION

Seamless integration of the various components of treatment will be essential for further improvements in outcome. In particular, the follow-up care of transplant recipients should always be provided in close cooperation with the transplant center.