Developing an ethics framework for living donor transplantation

Respecting living kidney donor autonomy: an argument for liberalising living kidney donor acceptance criteria

Doctors routinely refuse donation offers from prospective living kidney donors with certain comorbidities such as diabetes or obesity out of concern for donor wellbeing. This refusal occurs despite the ongoing shortage of kidney transplants and the superior performance of living donor kidney transplants compared to those from deceased donors. In this paper, we argue that this paternalistic refusal by doctors is unjustified and that, within limits, there should be greater acceptance of such donations. We begin by describing possible weak and strong paternalistic justifications of current conservative donor acceptance guidelines and practices. We then justify our position by outlining the frequently under-recognised benefits and the routinely overestimated harms of such donation, before discussing the need to respect the autonomy of willing donors with certain comorbidities. Finally, we respond to a number of possible objections to our proposal for more liberal kidney donor acceptance criteria. We use the situation in Australia as our case study, but our argument is applicable to comparable situations around the world.

Perceptions of Psychosocial and Ethical Issues and the Psychological Characteristics of Donors in the Clinical Setting of Living Kidney Donors: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

There are several psychosocial and ethical issues surrounding the decision to be a living kidney donor. The present study aimed to determine the perceptions of psychosocial and ethical issues that living kidney donors may have, and analyze their psychological characteristics.

METHODS

Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 donors. Thematic analysis was then performed to categorize the thematic elements of the transcripts. All procedures were approved by the relevant review board.

RESULTS

Four main categories were identified: Awareness of family dynamics, barriers to a proper understanding, contrasting psychological effects of recipient presence in clinical practice, insufficient information explained in informed consent.

CONCLUSION

Donors felt that they took on the "role as a care giver" for the recipient and were less aware of themselves as patients. This is a new concept that has not been shown in previous studies. Donors exist within the recipient and family, and the range of their autonomy may go beyond the traditional concept of autonomy and be rooted in relational autonomy. This study suggested that medical treatment in the presence of the recipient promotes the relational autonomy of the donor.

Conscientious Objection to Providing Gender Health Care in Pediatric Training: Balancing the Vulnerability of Transgender Youth and the Vulnerability of Pediatric Residents

Within pediatric graduate medical education, the care of transgender youth presents opportunities for deepening learners' understanding of equity, access, the role of the physician as an advocate, and health disparities caused by stigma and minority stress. However, when a pediatric resident objects to providing health care to this uniquely vulnerable population owing to their personal beliefs and values, how should pediatrician-educators respond? Important reasons to respect healthcare professionals' conscience have been described in the scholarly literature; however, equally important concerns have also been raised about the extent to which conscientious objection should be permitted in a pluralistic society, particularly given power differentials that favor healthcare professionals and grants them a monopoly over certain services. In the context of medical education, however, residents are in a unique position: they are simultaneously learners and employees, and although privileged relative to their patients, they are also vulnerable in relation to the hierarchy of healthcare and of institutions. We must find a compassionate balance between nurturing the evolving conscience of students and trainees and protecting the health and well-being of our most vulnerable patients. Educators have an obligation to foster empathy, mitigate bias, and mentor their learners, regardless of beliefs, but in some cases, they may recognize that there are limits: patients' welfare ultimately takes precedence and trainees should be guided toward alternative career paths. We explore the limits of conscientious objection in medical training and propose a framework for pediatrician-educators to support learners and patients in challenging circumstances.

Healthcare Resource Utilization After Living Liver Donation: A Retrospective Case-control Study

BACKGROUND

Living liver donation is generally considered safe, but donors may experience short or long-term complications. The purpose of this study was to assess healthcare resource utilization after liver donation in living liver donors in comparison to the general population.

METHODS

Outpatient or emergency department visits and hospital admissions were compared between living liver donors who underwent hepatic resection for living liver donation between 2004 and 2018 and the matched general population. Healthcare resource utilization data for 5 years after liver donation were collected from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database. For every living liver donor, 4 individually matched nondonors were selected from the NHIS database using age, sex, preexisting comorbidities, and previous healthcare utilization history.

RESULTS

A total of 1886 living liver donors and 7309 nondonors were included. In the first year after donation, living liver donors required more outpatient department visits (7 [4-13] vs. 3 [1-7], P < 0.001) and more emergency department visits (13.33% vs. 0.15%, P < 0.001) compared to matched nondonors. A similar trend persisted for 5 years after donation. The number of hospital admissions of living liver donors was higher for up to 2 years after donation with longer hospital length of stay (13.0 [10.5-16.0] vs. 5.0 [3.0-9.0] days, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare resource utilization in living liver donors for 5 years after donation were higher compared to matched nondonors. The higher healthcare resource demand may be related to postoperative complications or lowered threshold for healthcare resource utilization after donation.Supplemental Visual Abstract; http://links.lww.com/TP/C291.

Gender and race/ethnicity differences in living kidney donor demographics: Preference or disparity?

In the United States, women are over-represented and Blacks are under-represented as living kidney donors. A traditional bioethics approach would state that as long as living donors believe that the benefits of participation outweigh the risks and harms (beneficence) and they give a voluntary and informed consent, then the demographics reflect a mere difference in preferences. Such an analysis, however, ignores the social, economic and cultural determinants as well as various forms of structural discrimination (e.g., racism, sexism) that may imply that the distribution is less voluntary than may appear initially. The distribution also raises justice concerns regarding the fair recruitment and selection of living donors. We examine the differences in living kidney donor demographics using a vulnerabilities analysis and argue that these gender and racial differences may not reflect mere preferences, but rather, serious justice concerns that need to be addressed at both the individual and systems level.

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.

Cases in Precision Medicine: APOL1 and Genetic Testing in the Evaluation of Chronic Kidney Disease and Potential Transplant

This article discusses potential indications for genetic testing in an African American patient with chronic kidney disease who is being evaluated for a kidney transplant. Two known risk variants in the APOL1 (apolipoprotein L1) gene predispose to kidney disease and are found almost exclusively in persons of African ancestry. APOL1 risk variants are considered, including whether clinicians should incorporate genetic testing in the screening process for living kidney donors. In addition to APOL1 testing, the role of diagnostic exome sequencing in evaluating potential transplant recipients and donors with a positive family history of kidney disease is discussed.

Living Donation by Individuals with Life-Limiting Conditions

The traditional living donor was very healthy. However, as the supply-demand gap continues to expand, transplant programs have become more accepting of less healthy donors. This paper focuses on the other extreme, asking whether and when individuals who have life-limiting conditions (LLC) should be considered for living organ donation. We discuss ethical issues raised by 1) donation by individuals with progressive severe debilitating disease for whom there is no ameliorative therapy; and 2) donation by individuals who are imminently dying or would die by the donation process itself.