Living Organ Donation and Informed Consent in the United States: Strategies to Improve the Process

Ethical Challenges in Independent Living Donor Advocacy

The Independent Living Donor Advocate, who is required on the transplant team, advocates, promotes, and protects the interests of the donor. Previously described ethical challenges perceived by these advocates and the variability of their responses prompted further inquiry.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

How are ethical obligations perceived by ILDAs? What ethical principles do ILDAs identify as the basis of their decision making? What are the ethical challenges for ILDAs?

STUDY DESIGN

A descriptive cross-sectional survey was designed and administered via REDCap. Participants were recruited from the National Kidney Foundation Living Donor Advocate email list. Quantitative and qualitative data on their role, ethical decision making, and perceived ethical issues, by seriousness and frequency, were collected.

RESULTS

Thirty-four participants responded. Nonmaleficence was ranked as the primary ethical principle used in decision making. Participants rated obligations to protect higher than advocacy. Participants reported experiencing internal ethical conflict to protect over advocate for the donor. The most serious ethical challenge participants perceived for donors was their decisional capacity, followed by their emotional or psychological distress, which was also described as a frequent donor challenge experienced in their role.

DISCUSSION

The results of this survey validate previous descriptions that the advocate role is largely perceived as protective. Their independent nature as well as the inherent vulnerabilities of the potential living donor compels the continued mitigation of ethical challenges, to enhance advocacy and protection for the living donor.

Remapping the organ donation ethical climate: a care ethics consideration

Organ donation has gained much attention as the need for transplant exceeds the supply of organs. Various proposals have been put forward to address the organ shortage challenge, ranging from offering incentives to donors, addressing family refusals to donations and instituting presumed consent laws. Presumed consent as the favoured approach has not been universally effective in increasing actual transplants despite its appeal. Few considerations have been given to the broader ethical climate influencing the organ donation debate. This paper examines the ethical climate surrounding organ donation and identifies the challenges existing within such environments. It explores care ethics and its application to the donation system, demonstrating how it can influence the organ donation phases. The conclusion drawn from the analysis is that a caring ethical climate in the pre, during and post-transplant system respects donor autonomy, addresses family reluctance to agree to donation, facilitates the needs of the donee and creates an environment that promotes non-maleficence for all stakeholders.

The landscape of vascularized composite allograft donation in the United States

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Vascularized composite allograft (VCA) donation and transplantation has now demonstrated feasibility and impact to the lives of patients suffering from devastating and traumatic injury. This review summarizes the current landscape of VCA donation in the United States.

RECENT FINDINGS

VCA donations are nonlife-saving allografts, for nonlife-saving transplants - and therefore, conservative donor selection focused on the optimization of donors for the lowest risk to transplant recipients is paramount. VCA donors in the United States are a demographically and clinically diverse group that largely reflects the characteristics of the VCA candidates waiting for transplants. Public opinion about VCA donation is generally supportive, but has lower support for VCA transplants than for solid organ transplants.

SUMMARY

As an emerging area of transplantation, VCA donation is evolving in the United States with growing interest by the public, and those suffering from catastrophic injury for which reconstructive transplantation may offer excellent outcomes and a high quality of life.

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.

Landscape of Living Multiorgan Donation in the United States: A Registry-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The donation of multiple allografts from a single living donor is a rare practice, and the patient characteristics and outcomes associated with these procedures are not well described.

METHODS

Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 101 living multiorgan donors and their 133 recipients.

RESULTS

The 49 sequential (donations during separate procedures) multiorgan donors provided grafts to 81 recipients: 21 kidney-then-liver, 15 liver-then-kidney, 5 lung-then-kidney, 3 liver-then-intestine, 3 kidney-then-pancreas, 1 lung-then-liver, and 1 pancreas-then-kidney. Of these donors, 38% donated 2 grafts to the same recipient and 15% donated 2 grafts as non-directed donors. Compared to recipients from first-time, single organ living donors, recipients from second-time living donors had similar graft and patient survival. The 52 simultaneous (multiple donations during one procedure) multiorgan donors provided 2 grafts to 1 recipient each: 48 kidney-pancreas and 4 liver-intestine. Donors had median of 13.4 years (interquartile range, 8.3-18.5 years) of follow-up. There was one reported death of a sequential donor (2.5 years after second donation). Few postdonation complications were reported over a median of 116 days (interquartile range, 0-295 days) of follow-up; however, routine living donor follow-up data were sparse. Recipients of kidneys from second-time living donors had similar graft (P = 0.2) and patient survival (P = 0.4) when compared with recipients from first-time living donors. Similarly, recipients of livers from second-time living donors had similar graft survival (P = 0.9) and patient survival (P = 0.7) when compared with recipients from first-time living donors.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful documentation of outcomes is needed to ensure ethical practices in selection, informed consent, and postdonation care of this unique donor community.