Inequitable Access to Transplants: Adults With Impaired Decision-Making Capacity

Systems Connected to Inequities in Access to Kidney Transplantation and the Value of Intersectionality

Patients from minoritized backgrounds based on race/ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and other social identities are more likely to experience inequities in access in kidney transplantation. Although these inequities have been reported over the decades, limited research focuses on the experiences of patients with intersecting minoritized social statuses and the mechanisms that contribute to their reduced access to transplantation. Intersectionality, a framework for understanding the ways in which multiple social identities represent interacting systems of oppression and privilege, offers a nuanced approach for understanding the experiences of patients diagnosed with end-stage organ disease with intersecting social identities. This article outlines complex systems that perpetuate inequities by highlighting the value of intersectionality in studying disparate outcomes to transplant and providing recommendations for the transplant community. This article aligns with the ESOT call for action to promote equity in transplantation worldwide.

Teenager and the transplant: how the case of William Verden highlights action is needed to optimise equitable access to organs for patients with impaired decision-making

In February 2022, the Court of Protection was faced with the question of whether a kidney transplant was in the best interests of William Verden. The case highlighted the legal, ethical and clinical complexities of treating potential kidney transplant patients with impaired decision-making. Above all, it exposed the potential risk of discrimination on the basis of disability when treatment decisions in relation to potential kidney recipients with impaired capacity are being made. In this paper, we draw on the Verden case to (1) examine the role of the Court of Protection in cases relating to patients with impaired decision-making capacity who require a transplant, (2) to highlight the lack of empirical data on patients who have faced inequitable access to transplant and (3) highlight the shortcomings of the existing legal and regulatory framework in England and Wales guiding clinical decision making for patients in William's position. We consequently argue that there is a clear need for action to ensure equitable access to transplant for those in William's position. Furthermore, we suggest that there is a responsibility incumbent on policy makers and clinicians alike to develop a meaningful, and meaningfully operational, framework centred on preventing discrimination against potential organ recipients based on their decision-making capacity.

Ethics of allocation of donor organs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is no widely accepted single ethical principle for the fair allocation of scarce donor organs for transplantation. Although most allocation systems use combinations of allocation principles, there is a particular tension between 'prioritizing the worst-off' and 'maximizing total benefits'. It is often suggested that empirical research on public preferences should help solve the dilemma between equity and efficiency in allocation policy-making.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review shows that the evidence on public preferences for allocation principles is limited, and that the normative role of public preferences in donor organ allocation policy making is unclear. The review seeks to clarify the ethical dilemma to the transplant community, and draws attention to recent attempts at balancing and rank-ordering of allocation principles.

SUMMARY

This review suggests that policy makers should make explicit the relative weights attributed to equity and efficiency considerations in allocation policies, and monitor the effects of policy changes on important ethics outcomes, including equitable access among patient groups. Also, it draws attention to wider justice issues associated not with the distribution of donor organs among patients on waiting lists, but with barriers in referral for transplant evaluation and disparities among patient groups in access to waiting lists.