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

Fertility stakeholders' concerns regarding payment for egg and sperm donation in New Zealand and Australia

New Zealand and Australia are countries which currently prohibit donor payment and require open-identity forms of donation. This study explored the concerns of fertility stakeholders regarding payment which would constitute financial reward for gamete donation, and factors predicting such concerns. A total of 434 participants from across New Zealand and Australia completed an online survey anonymously. Participants included those with infertility and treatment experience, donors, recipients, donor-conceived people and clinic professionals. Results indicated that participants' concerns related to their assumptions about the type of donor motivated by financial reward, and the possibility that, if paid, donors might conceal information relevant to treatment and the donor-conceived person. Furthermore, participants were concerned about increasing recipient costs. Participants with personal experience of infertility held stronger concerns overall. Professionals expressed concerns of clinical relevance, such as the withholding of donor information relevant to treatment outcomes. The lowest levels of concern were expressed in relation to payment devaluing the meaning of human life. Qualitatively, themes highlighted concerns regarding payment enticing the 'wrong' type of donor, increased cost to recipients, and concern about the wellbeing of donor-offspring. Collectively, such concerns must be understood against the New Zealand and Australia open-identity donation context which enables the possibility of contact between donors and offspring. These findings indicate that donor recruitment campaigns need to account for different stakeholder concerns, and consider ways to address donor shortages effectively while remaining compliant with legislative requirements.

Patient and caregiver perspectives on burnout in peritoneal dialysis

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) can offer patients more autonomy and flexibility compared with in-center hemodialysis (HD). However, burnout - defined as mental, emotional, or physical exhaustion that leads to thoughts of discontinuing PD - is associated with an increased risk of transfer to HD. We aimed to describe the perspectives of burnout among patients on PD and their caregivers.

METHODS

In this focus group study, 81 patients and 45 caregivers participated in 14 focus groups from 9 dialysis units in Australia, Hong Kong, and the United States. Transcripts were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

We identified two themes. Suffering an unrelenting responsibility contributed to burnout, as patients and caregivers felt overwhelmed by the daily regimen, perceived their life to be coming to a halt, tolerated the PD regimen for survival, and had to bear the burden and uncertainty of what to expect from PD alone. Adapting and building resilience against burnout encompassed establishing a new normal, drawing inspiration and support from family, relying on faith and hope for motivation, and finding meaning in other activities.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients on PD and their caregivers, burnout was intensified by perceiving PD as an unrelenting, isolating responsibility that they had no choice but to endure, even if it held them back from doing other activities in life. More emphasis on developing strategies to adapt and build resilience could prevent or minimize burnout.

Opinions of Health Care Personnel Regarding Disincentives and Incentives for Living Kidney Donation at a Single Center

BACKGROUND

Transplant societies continue to actively concentrate on increasing rates of living kidney donation (LKD) to bridge the gap between individuals awaiting transplantation and the number of kidneys available. A widely discussed strategy to increase living donation rates is the provision of incentives and removal of disincentives. Though opinions of the public regarding this strategy have been studied, the opinions of health care providers, including younger professionals, are less clear. We studied the opinions of medical students and other health care providers on strategies to increase LKD to determine if opinions were different among those < 25 or ≥ 25 years of age.

METHODS

A simple cross-sectional survey was conducted at an academic medical center. Participants included medical students and employees in Internal Medicine, General Surgery, and the Organ Transplantation Center. Pearson's χ² and Fisher's exact test were conducted on the responses regarding disincentives and incentives to determine whether opinions differed based on age.

RESULTS

Six hundred and twenty-four participants completed the survey. There was no statistical difference in opinions between groups on reimbursing transportation costs, loss of wages, or childcare costs, but those aged ≥ 25 were more agreeable with covering food/lodging costs compared to those < 25 (96.5% vs 90.7%, P = .009). Respondents < 25 years old were more willing to donate a kidney for a financial incentive (P = .0002) accepting a median amount of $25,000.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care personnel broadly support removing financial disincentives for living kidney donation, and those ≥ 25 were more in favor of covering food/lodging costs compared to those < 25. Those < 25 years old were more likely to accept financial incentives towards donating their kidney compared to those ≥ 25 years.

From blood donation to kidney sales: the gift relationship and transplant commercialism

In The Gift Relationship, Richard Titmuss argued that the practice of altruistic blood donation fosters social solidarity while markets in blood erode it. This paper considers the implications of this line of argument for the organ market debate. I defend Titmuss' arguments against a number of criticisms and respond to claims that Titmuss' work is not relevant to the context of live donor organ transplantation. I conclude that Titmuss' arguments are more resilient than many advocates of organ markets suggest, and more relevant to the debate than is commonly appreciated.