The Body as Gift, Commodity, or Something in Between: Ethical Implications of Advanced Kidney Donation

Offering more without offering compensation: non-compensating benefits for living kidney donors

While different positions on the permissibility of organ markets enjoy support, there is widespread agreement that some benefits to living organ donors are acceptable and do not raise the same moral concerns associated with organ markets, such as exploitation and commodification. We argue on the basis of two distinctions that some benefit packages offered to donors can defensibly surpass conventional reimbursement while stopping short of controversial cash payouts. The first distinction is between benefits that defray the costs of donating an organ and benefits that incentivize donation by offering something in excess of defraying. The second distinction is between benefits that compensate donors and benefits that are non-compensating. We argue that non-compensating benefits are innocent of moral concerns typically associated with controversial cash payouts, and thus may be a morally promising avenue for increasing rates of kidney donation to address the tragic results of undersupply.

Evolving swaps in transplantation: global exchange, vouchers, liver, and trans-organ paired exchange

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the ongoing organ shortage, several mechanisms to facilitate organ exchanges and expand the scope of living kidney or liver donation have been proposed. Although each addresses at least one barrier to transplantation, these innovative programs raise important ethical, logistical, and regulatory considerations.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review addresses four recent proposals to expand living donor transplantation. For kidney transplantation, we discuss global paired exchange and advanced donation programs ('vouchers') and for liver transplantation, liver paired exchange. Lastly, this review considers trans-organ exchange. We explore the conceptual framework of the exchange, current status, benefits, and concerns for implementation among each of these evolving pathways.

SUMMARY

Through highlighting novel mechanisms in organ exchange, greater awareness, discussion, or support can occur to create more avenues for transplantation. These innovative mechanisms require regulations and safeguards for donors to ensure informed consent, and proper follow-up is maintained.

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.

Organ Vouchers and Barter Markets: Saving Lives, Reducing Suffering, and Trading in Human Organs

The essays in this issue of The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy explore an innovative voucher program for encouraging kidney donation. Discussions cluster around a number of central moral and political/theoretical themes: (1) What are the direct and indirect health care costs and benefits of such a voucher system in human organs? (2) Do vouchers lead to more effective and efficient organ procurement and allocation or contribute to greater inequalities and inefficiencies in the transplantation system? (3) Do vouchers contribute to the inappropriate commodification of human body parts? (4) Is there a significant moral difference between such a voucher system and a market in human organs for transplantation? This paper argues that while kidney vouchers constitute a step in the right direction, fuller utilization of market-based incentives, including, but not limited to, barter exchanges (e.g., organ exchanges, organ chains, and organ vouchers), would save more lives and further reduce human suffering.