Kidney Paired-Donation Program Versus Global Kidney Exchange in India

Kidney paired donation in developing countries: A global perspective

Purpose of review

We review the key principles of kidney paired donation (KPD) and discuss the status and unique considerations for KPD in developing countries.

Recent findings

Despite the advantages of KPD programs, they remain rare among developing nations, and the programs that exist have many differences with those of in developed countries. There is a paucity of literature and lack of published data on KPD from most of the developing nations. Expanding KPD programs may require the adoption of features and innovations of successful KPD programs. Cooperation with national and international societies should be encouraged to ensure endorsement and sharing of best practices.

Summary

KPD is in the initial stages or has not yet started in the majority of the emerging nations. But the logistics and strategies required to implement KPD in developing nations differ from other parts of the world. By learning from the KPD experience in developing countries and adapting to their unique needs, it should be possible to expand access to KPD to allow more transplants to happen for patients in need world-wide.

Addressing the Ethical Challenges of Providing Kidney Failure Care for Children: A Global Stance

Children with kidney failure require kidney replacement therapy (KRT), namely maintenance dialysis and kidney transplant. Adequate kidney failure care consists of KRT or conservative treatment with palliative care. In the context of kidney failure, children depend on parents who are their surrogate decision-makers, and the pediatric nephrology team for taking decisions about KRT or conservative care. In this paper, we discuss the ethical challenges that arise relating to such decision-making, from a global perspective, using the framework of pediatric bioethics. While many ethical dilemmas in the care of children with KRT are universal, the most significant ethical dilemma is the inequitable access to KRT in low & middle income countries (LMICs) where rates of morbidity and mortality depend on the family's ability to pay. Children with kidney failure in LMICs have inadequate access to maintenance dialysis, timely kidney transplant and palliative care compared to their counterparts in high income countries. Using case vignettes, we highlight how these disparities place severe burdens on caregivers, resulting in difficult decision-making, and lead to moral distress among pediatric nephrologists. We conclude with key action points to change this status-quo, the most important being advocacy by the global pediatric nephrology community for better access to affordable kidney failure care for children.

Global Kidney Exchange: opportunity or exploitation? An ELPAT/ESOT appraisal

This paper addresses ethical, legal, and psychosocial aspects of Global Kidney Exchange (GKE). Concerns have been raised that GKE violates the nonpayment principle, exploits donors in low- and middle-income countries, and detracts from the aim of self-sufficiency. We review the arguments for and against GKE. We argue that while some concerns about GKE are justified based on the available evidence, others are speculative and do not apply exclusively to GKE but to living donation more generally. We posit that concerns can be mitigated by implementing safeguards, by developing minimum quality criteria and by establishing an international committee that independently monitors and evaluates GKE's procedures and outcomes. Several questions remain however that warrant further clarification. What are the experiences and views of recipients and donors participating in GKE? Who manages the escrow funds that have been put in place for donor and recipients? What procedures and safeguards have been put in place to prevent corruption of these funds? What are the inclusion criteria for participating GKE centers? GKE provides opportunity to promote access to donation and transplantation but can only be conducted with the appropriate safeguards. Patients' and donors' voices are missing in this debate.