Discovering Misattributed Paternity in Living Kidney Donation: Prevalence, Preference, and Practice

Exploring genetic counselors' experiences with non-paternity in clinical settings

Non-paternity (NP) is a challenging dilemma faced by genetics providers and there is little consensus on whether this finding should be disclosed. Discussions in the literature are highly theoretical, with limited research regarding how disclosure decisions are enacted in practice. We explored genetic counselors' (GCs) clinical experiences with NP to understand if, how, and why this finding is communicated. Our semi-structured interviews with genetic counselors in the United States and Canada were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis to analyze data inductively, describe themes, and present a meaningful interpretation of the data. Eighteen participants who responded to list-serv messages were interviewed. Our framework describes five salient themes: (1) GC-lab relationship: the GCs awareness of laboratory processes such as quality control metrics that can uncover NP findings and the way in which a finding of NP was disclosed by the laboratory had an impact on disclosure decisions. This triggered a decision-making trajectory that involved (2) consultation, (3) ethical reasoning, and (4) practical constraints. GCs frequently consulted other professionals during decision-making. These conversations impacted disclosure decisions with some consultations carrying greater weight than others. GCs weighed moral concepts of patient autonomy, medical relevance, and preventing harm to rationalize decisions. Access to patients and documentation requirements often dictated how disclosure occurred. Finally, once a decision had been made and enacted, GCs used the experience to reconsider their approach to (5) consenting in future cases, with some GCs altering their pre-test counseling to always include a discussion of NP. Although NP scenarios are frequently unique in context, our findings demonstrate several common decision-making factors GCs harness to navigate the identification of NP through clinical genetic testing.

Discovering your presumed father is not your biological father: Psychiatric ramifications of independently uncovered non-paternity events resulting from direct-to-consumer DNA testing

Direct-to-consumer DNA tests provide information on ancestry and family relations. Their increased use in recent years has led many to discover that their presumed father is not their biological father, a non-paternity event (NPE). We aimed to explore and quantify the psychiatric effects of discovering one's father's identity was misattributed. We distributed questionnaires in a private online community of individuals who learned they were NPEs. Questionnaires included clinical scales assessing depressive, anxiety, and panic symptomatology as well as background and personal details regarding participants' NPE discovery and demography. A total of 731 people participated. Results demonstrated increased levels of depression, anxiety, and panic symptoms relative to controls. Multiple factors influenced such effects, including demographics, background information, family members' reactions, and personal reactions. We identified a worsening relationship or attitude toward the mother as a risk factor for worse mental health. The ability to openly discuss the discovery and acceptance of it were identified as protective factors. This is the first paper to explore the psychiatric sequelae of discovering misattributed paternity in a large cohort. This unique psychosocial stressor is likely to become more common as direct-to-consumer DNA tests gain popularity, requiring the attention of mental health professionals.

Recommendations for living donor kidney transplantation

This Guide for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation (LDKT) has been prepared with the sponsorship of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SEN), the Spanish Transplant Society (SET), and the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). It updates evidence to offer the best chronic renal failure treatment when a potential living donor is available. The core aim of this Guide is to supply clinicians who evaluate living donors and transplant recipients with the best decision-making tools, to optimise their outcomes. Moreover, the role of living donors in the current KT context should recover the level of importance it had until recently. To this end the new forms of incompatible HLA and/or ABO donation, as well as the paired donation which is possible in several hospitals with experience in LDKT, offer additional ways to treat renal patients with an incompatible donor. Good results in terms of patient and graft survival have expanded the range of circumstances under which living renal donors are accepted. Older donors are now accepted, as are others with factors that affect the decision, such as a borderline clinical history or alterations, which when evaluated may lead to an additional number of transplantations. This Guide does not forget that LDKT may lead to risk for the donor. Pre-donation evaluation has to centre on the problems which may arise over the short or long-term, and these have to be described to the potential donor so that they are able take them into account. Experience over recent years has led to progress in risk analysis, to protect donors' health. This aspect always has to be taken into account by LDKT programmes when evaluating potential donors. Finally, this Guide has been designed to aid decision-making, with recommendations and suggestions when uncertainties arise in pre-donation studies. Its overarching aim is to ensure that informed consent is based on high quality studies and information supplied to donors and recipients, offering the strongest possible guarantees.

Canadian Society of Transplantation and Canadian Society of Nephrology Commentary on the 2017 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

Purpose of review:

To review an international guideline on the evaluation and care of living kidney donors and provide a commentary on the applicability of the recommendations to the Canadian donor population.

Sources of information:

We reviewed the 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors and compared this guideline to the Canadian 2014 Kidney Paired Donation (KPD) Protocol for Participating Donors.

Methods:

A working group was formed consisting of members from the Canadian Society of Transplantation and the Canadian Society of Nephrology. Members were selected to have representation from across Canada and in various subspecialties related to living kidney donation, including nephrology, surgery, transplantation, pediatrics, and ethics.

Key findings:

Many of the KDIGO Guideline recommendations align with the KPD Protocol recommendations. Canadian researchers have contributed to much of the evidence on donor evaluation and outcomes used to support the KDIGO Guideline recommendations.

Limitations:

Certain outcomes and risk assessment tools have yet to be validated in the Canadian donor population.

Implications:

Living kidney donors should be counseled on the risks of postdonation outcomes given recent evidence, understanding the limitations of the literature with respect to its generalizability to the Canadian donor population.

Helping More Patients Receive a Living Donor Kidney Transplant

The best treatment option for many patients with kidney failure is a kidney transplant from a living donor. Countries that successfully increase their rate of living kidney donation will decrease their reliance on dialysis, the most expensive and high-risk form of kidney replacement therapy. Outlined here are some barriers that prevent some patients from pursuing living kidney donation and current knowledge on some potential solutions to these barriers. Also described are strategies to promote living kidney donation in a defensible system of practice. Safely increasing the rate of living kidney donation will require better programs and policies to improve the experiences of living donors and their recipients, to safeguard the practice for years to come.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.

Ethical, Legal and Social Issues in Japan on the Determination of Blood Relationship via DNA Testing

DNA paternity testing has recently become more widely available in Japan. The aim of this paper is to examine the issues surrounding (1) the implementing agency, whether the testing is conducted in a commercial direct-to-consumer (DTC) setting or a judicial non-DTC setting, and (2) the implementation conditions and more specifically the legal capacity of the proband (test subject). Literature research in Japanese and English was conducted. Some countries prohibit commercial DNA testing without the consent of the proband or her or his legally authorized representative. But as in some cases, the results of DTC paternity testing have proven to be unreliable. I propose a complete prohibition of DTC DNA paternity testing in Japan. In many cases of paternity testing, the proband is a minor. This has led to debate about whether proxy consent is sufficient for paternity testing or whether additional safeguards (such as a court order) are required. In cases where commercial DNA testing has been conducted and the test results are produced in court as evidence, the court must judge whether or not to admit these results as evidence. Another important issue is whether or not paternity testing should be legally mandated in certain cases. If we come to the conclusion that DNA test results are the only way to conclusively establish a parent-child relationship, then our society may prioritize even more genetic relatedness over other conceptions of a parent-child relationship. This prioritization could adversely affect families created through assisted reproductive technology (ART), especially in situations where children are not aware of their biological parentage. This paper argues for a complete prohibition of DTC DNA paternity testing in Japan, and highlights that broader ethical and legal deliberation on such genetic services is required

Regulating Gamete Donation in the U.S.: Ethical, Legal and Social Implications

This article explores the practice of gamete donation in the U.S. having in mind the larger question of what do we as a society owe children born as a result (donor-conceived children). Do recipient-parents have a duty to tell their donor-conceived child about his/her genetic origins? Should the identity of the donor be disclosed or remain anonymous? Does the child have a right to know her conception story and to receive information, including identifying information, about the donor? Furthermore, if a donor-conceived child has a right to know, who has the duty to tell her/him about it? The Article underscores the ethical, legal and social dilemmas that arise, comparing and contrasting with international developments in this arena. It highlights the market-based and more specific medical justifications for regulating this field, explores the emerging so-called right of the child to know his/her genetic origins (“the right to know”), and considers the challenges such a right evokes to existing legal culture and principles of medical ethics in the U.S. as well as other broader societal implications of such a right.

Misattributed paternity in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: the role of the healthcare provider

BACKGROUND

With emerging technologies and genetic advancements in the field of oncology, ethical controversies and questions on how to approach them will continue to grow. Advancements in the field of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation have led to increased testing of transplantation recipients' children and parents as potential donors related to an increase in the use of haploidentical transplantations. This testing opens the door for an increased incidence of misattributed paternity findings.

OBJECTIVES

This article attempts to address the ethical conflicts and provide potential solutions to assist in the transition from individual-focused care to family-focused care.

METHODS

The principlist approach was used.

FINDINGS

Healthcare providers should be educated on methods of incidental finding disclosure and how to provide adequate support for those individuals.

Organ donation and transplantation in Canada: insights from the Canadian Organ Replacement Register

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an overview of the transplant component of the Canadian Organ Replacement Register (CORR).

FINDINGS

CORR is the national registry of organ failure in Canada. It has existed in some form since 1972 and currently houses data on patients with end-stage renal disease and solid organ transplants (kidney and/or non-kidney). The transplant component of CORR receives data on a voluntary basis from individual transplant centres and organ procurement organizations across the country. Coverage for transplant procedures is comprehensive and complete. Long-term outcomes are tracked based on follow-up reports from participating transplant centres. The longitudinal nature of CORR provides an opportunity to observe the trajectory of a patient's journey with organ failure over their life span. Research studies conducted using CORR data inform both practitioners and health policy makers alike.

IMPLICATIONS

The importance of registry data in monitoring and improving care for Canadian transplant candidates/recipients cannot be over-stated. This paper provides an overview of the transplant data in CORR including its history, data considerations, recent findings, new initiatives, and future directions.

Living kidney donor assessment: challenges, uncertainties and controversies among transplant nephrologists and surgeons

The assessment of living kidney donors presents unique ethical challenges and complex psychosocial implications. This study aimed to ascertain the perspectives of transplant nephrologists and surgeons on living kidney donor assessment. Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 110 transplant nephrologists and surgeons from 43 transplant units in 12 countries from Europe, Australasia and North America. The challenge of defining acceptable risk to the donor was central to five themes identified: burden of responsibility (personal accountability, policing morality, democratic decision making, meeting legal obligations, optimizing outcomes and innovation, relinquished control); medical protectiveness (prognostic uncertainty, skepticism of donor risk perception, avoidance of undue coercion, concerns for dubious motivations and coercion, safeguard donor well-being, ethical information disclosure); respecting donor autonomy (facilitate informed-decision making, concede to donor risk acceptance, benefit of the doubt, donor mandate to maintain health, acceptable altruism); driving ideologies (preserving equity, championing living donation, cognizance of anti-paternalism) and contextual pressures (evolving donor demographic, resource limitations). Living kidney donor assessment involves complex interactions between safeguarding the donors' welfare and respecting their autonomy. In our opinion, authoritative and well-described transplant unit, hospital and public policy positions that make explicit the considerations that are often implicit may reduce the uncertainty within which living donors are assessed today.

Managing misaligned paternity findings in research including sickle cell disease screening in Kenya: 'consulting communities' to inform policy

The management of misaligned paternity findings raises important controversy worldwide. It has mainly, however, been discussed in the context of high-income countries. Genetic and genomics research, with the potential to show misaligned paternity, are becoming increasingly common in Africa. During a genomics study in Kenya, a dilemma arose over testing and sharing information on paternal sickle cell disease status. This dilemma may be paradigmatic of challenges in sharing misaligned paternity findings in many research and health care settings. Using a deliberative approach to community consultation to inform research practice, we explored residents' views on paternal testing and sharing misaligned paternity information. Between December 2009 and November 2010, 63 residents in Kilifi County were engaged in informed deliberative small group discussions, structured to support normative reflection within the groups, with purposive selection to explore diversity. Analysis was based on a modified framework analysis approach, drawing on relevant social science and bioethics literature. The methods generated in-depth individual and group reflection on morally important issues and uncovered wide diversity in views and values. Fundamental and conflicting values emerged around the importance of family interests and openness, underpinned by disagreement on the moral implications of marital infidelity and withholding truth. Wider consideration of ethical issues emerging in these debates supports locally-held reasoning that paternal sickle cell testing should not be undertaken in this context, in contrast to views that testing should be done with or without the disclosure of misaligned paternity information. The findings highlight the importance of facilitating wider testing of family members of affected children, contingent on the development and implementation of national policies for the management of this inherited disorder. Their richness also illustrates the potential for the approach adopted in this study to strengthen community consultation.

Disclosing recipient information to potential living donors: preferences of donors and recipients, before and after surgery

Consensus guidelines, while recommending that potential living donors should be given information that could impact their donation decision, are nonspecific about the types of information that should be disclosed. We surveyed potential (n = 36) and past (n = 45) living donors and transplant candidates (n = 45) and recipients (n = 45) about their preferences for sharing or knowing specific information about the recipient, how this information would impact decision-making, and who should be responsible for disclosing information. Potential donors were less likely than all others to feel that recipient information should be disclosed to potential donors. Donors and recipients felt most strongly about disclosing if the recipient lost a previously transplanted kidney due to medication nonadherence as well as the likelihood of 1- and 5-year graft survival. Most donors would be less likely to pursue donation if the recipient lost a previously transplanted kidney due to medication nonadherence or generally had problems with taking medications as prescribed. Transplant programs should consider how to best balance the potential donor's right to receive information that could reasonably be expected to affect their decision-making process with the recipient's right to privacy and confidentiality.

Reflexivity over and above convention: the new orthodoxy in the sociology of personal life, formerly sociology of the family

There is a new orthodoxy in the field that was once understood as the sociology of the family, and is increasingly understood as the sociology of 'personal life', 'intimacy', 'relationships' and 'families'. The orthodoxy highlights the open-endedness of intimate relations at the expense of the family as an institution; that is, reflexivity over and above convention. This article argues that the new orthodoxy not only overstates reflexivity at the expense of convention, but abdicates understanding to frameworks grounded in biologistic and economistic understandings of human behaviour. The article makes its point through attention to three areas of research at odds with the new orthodoxy: paternity uncertainty, inheritance and family business. It then proposes that conceptualization of the family as an institutional regime gives due weight to the reflexive reconfiguration of family relationships and practices on the one hand, and their institutional embeddedness on the other.

Good ethics requires good science: why transplant programs should not disclose misattributed parentage

In 1996, I argued that the recommendation by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to inform women when tests reveal misattributed paternity and not to disclose this information to the women's partners was morally wrong. I argued in favor of disclosure to both parties. It is a position that I still hold. But claims of misattributed paternity are not 'incidental findings' as it was called in the old genetics literature, but a rather serious indictment of biological infidelity. In this paper I argue that the tests used by transplant programs for living donor-recipient compatibility are inadequate to accurately determine misattributed paternity. Further I argue that it is not the responsibility of the transplant community to undertake such serious forensic evaluations. Genetic inconsistencies in ABO and HLA inheritance should be reported as variations. Families who want further clarification should be referred to a genetic professional.