The prohibition of kidney sales and organ markets should remain. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2008;13:386-394. [PMID: 18685334 DOI: 10.1097/mot.0b013e3283097476]

A fair exchange: why living kidney donors in England should be financially compensated

Every year, hundreds of patients in England die whilst waiting for a kidney transplant, and this is evidence that the current system of altruistic-based donation is not sufficient to address the shortage of kidneys available for transplant. To address this problem, we propose a monopsony system whereby kidney donors can opt-in to receive financial compensation, whilst still preserving the right of individuals to donate without receiving any compensation. A monopsony system describes a market structure where there is only one 'buyer'-in this case the National Health Service. By doing so, several hundred lives could be saved each year in England, wait times for a kidney transplant could be significantly reduced, and it would lessen the burden on dialysis services. Furthermore, compensation would help alleviate the common disincentives to living kidney donation, such as its potential associated health and psychological costs, and it would also help to increase awareness of living kidney donation. The proposed system would also result in significant cost savings that could then be redirected towards preventing kidney disease and reducing health disparities. While concerns about exploitation, coercion, and the 'crowding out' of altruistic donors exist, we believe that careful implementation can mitigate these issues. Therefore, we recommend piloting financial compensation for living kidney donors at a transplant centre in England.

Have we reached the limits in altruistic kidney donation?

Altruistic donation (unspecified donation) is an important aspect of living donor kidney transplantation. Although donation to a stranger is lawful and supported in many countries, it remains uncommon and not actively promoted. Herein, we ask the question if we have reached the limit in altruistic donation. In doing so, we examine important ethical questions that define the limits of unspecified donation, such as the appropriate balance between autonomous decision-making and paternalistic protection of the donor, the extent of outcome uncertainty and risk-benefit analyses that donors should be allowed to accept. We also consider the scrutiny and acceptance of donor motives, the potential for commercialization, donation to particular categories of recipients (including those encountered through social media) and the ethical boundaries of active promotion of unspecified kidney donation. We conclude that there is scope to increase the number of living donation kidney transplants further by optimizing existing practices to support and promote unspecified donation. A number of strategies including optimization of the assessment process, innovative approaches to reach potential donors together with reimbursement of expenses and a more specific recognition of unspecified donation are likely to lead to a meaningful increase in this type of donation.

Cost-utility analysis in chronic kidney disease patients undergoing kidney transplant; what pays? A systematic review

Background

Health systems are under pressure to deliver more effective care without expansion of resources. This is particularly pertinent to diseases like chronic kidney disease (CKD) that are exacting substantial financial burden to many health systems. The aim of this study is to systematically review the Cost Utility Analysis (CUA) evidence generated across interventions for CKD patients undergoing kidney transplant (KT).

Methods

A systemic review of CUA on the interventions for CKD patients undergoing KT was carried out using a search of the MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and NHS-EED. The CHEERS checklist was used as a set of good practice criteria in determining the reporting quality of the economic evaluation. Quality of the data used to inform model parameters was determined using the modified hierarchies of data sources.

Results

A total of 330 articles identified, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Almost all (n = 15) the studies were from high income countries. Out of the 24 characteristics assessed in the CHEERS checklist, more than 80% of the selected studies reported 14 of the characteristics. Reporting of the CUA were characterized by lack of transparency of model assumptions, narrow economic perspective and incomplete assessment of the effect of uncertainty in the model parameters on the results. The data used for the economic model were satisfactory quality. The authors of 13 studies reported the intervention as cost saving and improving quality of life, whereas three studies were cost increasing and improving quality of life. In addition to the baseline analysis, sensitivity analysis was performed in all the evaluations except one. Transplanting certain high-risk donor kidneys (high risk of HIV and Hepatitis-C infected kidneys, HLA mismatched kidneys, high Kidney Donor Profile Index) and a payment to living donors, were found to be cost-effective.

Conclusions

The quality of economic evaluations reviewed in this paper were assessed to be satisfactory. Implementation of these strategies will significantly impact current systems of KT and require a systematic implementation plan and coordinated efforts from relevant stakeholders.

Focus group study of public opinion about paying living kidney donors in Australia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The unmet demand for kidney transplantation has generated intense controversy about introducing incentives for living kidney donors to increase donation rates. Such debates may affect public perception and acceptance of living kidney donation. This study aims to describe the range and depth of public opinion on financial reimbursement, compensation, and incentives for living kidney donors.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Twelve focus groups were conducted with 113 participants recruited from the general public in three Australian states in February 2013. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the transcripts.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified: creating ethical impasses (commodification of the body, quandary of kidney valuation, pushing moral boundaries), corrupting motivations (exposing the vulnerable, inevitable abuse, supplanting altruism), determining justifiable risk (compromising kidney quality, undue harm, accepting a confined risk, trusting protective mechanisms, right to autonomy), driving access (urgency of organ shortage, minimizing disadvantage, guaranteeing cost-efficiency, providing impetus, counteracting black markets), and honoring donor deservingness (fairness and reason, reassurance and rewards, merited recompense). Reimbursement and justifiable recompense are considered by the Australian public as a legitimate way of supporting donors and reducing disadvantage. Financial payment beyond reimbursement is regarded as morally reprehensible, with the potential for exploitative commercialism. Some contend that regulated compensation could be a defensible strategy to increased donation rates provided that mechanisms are in place to protect donors.

CONCLUSIONS

The perceived threat to community values of human dignity, goodwill, and fairness suggests that there could be strong public resistance to any form of financial inducements for living kidney donors. Policy priorities addressing the removal of disincentives may be more acceptable to the public.

Between Scylla and Charybdis: charting an ethical course for research into financial incentives for living kidney donation

New approaches to address the kidney scarcity in the United States are urgently needed. The greatest potential source of kidneys is from living donors. Proposals to offer financial incentives to increase living kidney donation rates remain highly controversial. Despite repeated calls for a pilot study to assess the impact of financial compensation on living kidney donation rates, many fear that financial incentives will exploit vulnerable individuals and cast the field of transplantation in a negative public light, ultimately reducing donation rates. This paper provides an ethical justification for conducting a pilot study of a federally regulated approach to providing financial incentives to living kidney donors, with the goal of assessing donors' perceptions.

Does financial compensation for living kidney donation change willingness to donate?

The potential use of financial compensation to increase living kidney donation rates remains controversial in potentially introducing undue inducement of vulnerable populations to donate. This cross-sectional study assessed amounts of financial compensation that would generate motivation and an undue inducement to donate to family/friends or strangers. Individuals leaving six Departments of Motor Vehicles were surveyed. Of the 210 participants who provided verbal consent (94% participation rate), respondents' willingness to donate would not change (70%), or would increase (29%) with compensation. Median lowest amounts of financial compensation for which participants would begin to consider donating a kidney were $5000 for family/friends, and $10,000 for strangers; respondents reporting $0 for family/friends (52%) or strangers (26%) were excluded from analysis. Median lowest amounts of financial compensation for which participants could no longer decline (perceive an undue inducement) were $50,000 for family/friends, and $100,000 for strangers; respondents reporting $0 for family/friends (44%) or strangers (23%) were excluded from analysis. The two most preferred forms of compensation included: direct payment of money (61%) and paid leave (21%). The two most preferred uses of compensation included: paying off debt (38%) and paying nonmedical expenses associated with the transplant (29%). Findings suggest tolerance for, but little practical impact of, financial compensation. Certain compensation amounts could motivate the public to donate without being perceived as an undue inducement.

International survey of nephrologists' perceptions and attitudes about rewards and compensations for kidney donation

BACKGROUND

Payment for organ donation, whether in the form of incentives, rewards or compensation is highly debated and has been denounced by many professional and legislative bodies. Despite the passionate discussion in the literature, there is very limited data on attitudes and perceptions of physicians about providing rewards or compensation to organ donors. We investigated the relationship between demographic and practice characteristics of nephrologists and their perceptions and attitudes about rewards and compensations for organ donation.

METHODS

Using a web-based survey, we explored the views of nephrologists around the world about rewards and compensations for kidney donation. The relationship between attitudes and demographic characteristics of 1280 nephrologists from 74 countries was examined by univariate and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

Seventy-five percent agreed with donor health insurance, 26% favored direct financial compensation and 31% agreed with financial rewards for unrelated donors. Sixty-six percent believed that rewards will lead to increased donation. Seventy-three percent indicated that rewards will lead to exploitation of the poor and 78% agreed with legislation prohibiting organ sales. Thirty-seven percent believed that rewards will negatively impact deceased-donor transplantation. Nephrologists from India/Pakistan and the Middle East had more favorable views about rewards, while respondents from Latin America and Europe, older than 50, female nephrologists and those practicing in rural areas had less favorable views.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that a minority of nephrologists favor rewards for donation, many agree with some compensation and a considerable majority favor donor health insurance. Perceptions of nephrologists about rewards and compensation are influenced by age, sex, urban versus rural location and geographic region of practice.

Living donation: the global perspective

Of 195 independent countries in the world, 83 have transplant programs. Some countries (areas) have emphasized living donation; others, decreased donation. As a consequence, rates of living donation vary widely between geographic areas and often between countries within the same geographic area. The major ethical issue in living donation is the risk to the donor. Internationally, numerous guidelines have been developed outlining acceptable donor evaluation and criteria for approval. An ongoing issue is that there remains considerable variation between countries (and programs within a country) in evaluation and in acceptance criteria. A major problem for most countries is the shortage of organs. As a consequence, illegal or quasi-legal unregulated markets have developed in some areas. These markets have not provided protection for either donor or recipient. The transplant community has taken a unified stand against these underground unregulated markets.

Key issues in transplant tourism

Access to organ transplantation depends on national circumstances, and is partly determined by the cost of health care, availability of transplant services, the level of technical capacity and the availability of organs. Commercial transplantation is estimated to account for 5%-10% (3500-7000) of kidney transplants performed annually throughout the world. This review is to determine the state and outcome of renal transplantation associated with transplant tourism (TT) and the key challenges with such transplantation. The stakeholders of commercial transplantation include: patients on the waiting lists in developed countries or not on any list in developing countries; dialysis funding bodies; middlemen, hosting transplant centres; organ-exporting countries; and organ vendors. TT and commercial kidney transplants are associated with a high incidence of surgical complications, acute rejection and invasive infection which cause major morbidity and mortality. There are ethical and medical concerns regarding the management of recipients of organs from vendors. The growing demand for transplantation, the perceived failure of altruistic donation in providing enough organs has led to calls for a legalised market in organ procurement or regulated trial in incentives for donation. Developing transplant services worldwide has many benefits - improving results of transplantation as they would be performed legally, increasing the donor pool and making TT unnecessary. Meanwhile there is a need to re-examine intrinsic attitudes to TT bearing in mind the cultural and economic realities of globalisation. Perhaps the World Health Organization in conjunction with The Transplantation Society would set up a working party of stakeholders to study this matter in greater detail and make recommendations.

Incentives for organ donation: proposed standards for an internationally acceptable system

Incentives for organ donation, currently prohibited in most countries, may increase donation and save lives. Discussion of incentives has focused on two areas: (1) whether or not there are ethical principles that justify the current prohibition and (2) whether incentives would do more good than harm. We herein address the second concern and propose for discussion standards and guidelines for an acceptable system of incentives for donation. We believe that if systems based on these guidelines were developed, harms would be no greater than those to today's conventional donors. Ultimately, until there are trials of incentives, the question of benefits and harms cannot be satisfactorily answered.

Kidneys for sale: who disapproves, and why?

The shortage of transplant kidneys has spurred debate about legalizing monetary payments to donors to increase the number of available kidneys. However, buying and selling organs faces widespread disapproval. We survey a representative sample of Americans to assess disapproval for several forms of kidney market, and to understand why individuals disapprove by identifying factors that predict disapproval, including disapproval of markets for other body parts, dislike of increased scope for markets and distrust of markets generally. Our results suggest that while the public is potentially receptive to compensating kidney donors, among those who oppose it, general disapproval toward certain kinds of transactions is at least as important as concern about specific policy details. Between 51% and 63% of respondents approve of the various potential kidney markets we investigate, and between 42% and 58% want such markets to be legal. A total of 38% of respondents disapprove of at least one market. Respondents who distrust markets generally are not more disapproving of kidney markets; however we find significant correlations between kidney market disapproval and attitudes reflecting disapproval toward certain transactions-including both other body markets and market encroachment into traditionally nonmarket exchanges, such as food preparation.

Sociological and ethical issues in transplant commercialism

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

'Global transplant commercialism' (practices and policies involving international trade in organs from living vendors, e.g., 'transplant tourism') is currently subjected to unprecedented criticism. In parallel, the debate around 'local transplant commercialism' (practices and policies that confine trade in organs from living vendors to national markets or economic unions) is heating up. In an attempt to assess the potential outcomes of these trends, this article reviews and discusses some sociological and ethical issues, ending with a proposal for a reinvigorated anticommercialist strategy.

RECENT FINDINGS

The current international campaign against global transplant commercialism is conducted by an ad hoc alliance between strange bedfellows, proponents of local transplant commercialism on the one hand and opponents of any transplant commercialism on the other. Disparities in the rigor of the respective ethical discourses, the expanding list of precedents of legitimized commerce in the human body, and the political economy of transplantation, all suggest that the former have the upper hand.

SUMMARY

Recent achievements in the struggle against international organ trafficking may not herald the abolition of transplant commercialism but rather presage its reconfiguration in deglobalized forms. In light of such a prospect, those who wish to prevent the pervasive commodification of the human body from entering the gates of transplant medicine should consider devising a new, perhaps more radical, strategy.