Choice, pressure and markets in kidneys

We do not always benefit from the expansion of our choice sets. This is because some options change the context in which we must make decisions in ways that render us worse off than we would have been otherwise. One promising argument against paid living kidney donation holds that having the option of selling a 'spare' kidney would impact people facing financial pressures in precisely this way. I defend this argument from two related criticisms: first, that having the option to sell one's kidney would only be harmful if one is pressured or coerced to take this specific course of action; and second, that such forms of pressure are unlikely to feature in a legal market.

Swaps and Chains and Vouchers, Oh My!: Evaluating How Saving More Lives Impacts the Equitable Allocation of Live Donor Kidneys

Live kidney donation involves a delicate balance between saving the most lives possible and maintaining a transplant system that is fair to the many thousands of patients on the transplant waiting list. Federal law and regulations require that kidney allocation be equitable, but the pressure to save patients subject to ever-lengthening waiting times for a transplant has been swinging the balance toward optimizing utility at the expense of justice. This article traces the progression of innovations created to make optimum use of a patient's own live donors. It starts with the simplest - direct donation by family members - and ends with voucher donations, a very recent and unique innovation because the donor can donate 20 or more years before the intended recipient is expected to need a kidney. In return for the donation, the intended recipient receives a voucher that can be redeemed for a live kidney when it is needed. Other innovations that are discussed include kidney exchanges and list paired donation, which are used to facilitate donor swaps when donor/recipient pairs have incompatible blood types. The discussion of each new innovation shows how the equity issues build on each other and how, with each new innovation, it becomes progressively harder to find an acceptable balance between utility and justice. The article culminates with an analysis of two recent allocation methods that have the potential to save many additional lives, but also affirmatively harm some patients on the deceased donor waiting list by increasing their waiting time for a life-saving kidney. The article concludes that saving additional lives does not justify harming patients on the waiting list unless that harm can be minimized. It also proposes solutions to minimize the harm so these new innovations can equitably perform their intended function of stimulating additional transplants and extending the lives of many transplant patients.

Health Disparities in Kidney Transplantation for African Americans

BACKGROUND

The persistent challenges of bridging healthcare disparities for African Americans (AAs) in need of kidney transplantation continue to be unresolved at the national level. This healthcare disparity is multifactorial: stemming from limited kidney donors suitable for AAs; inconsistent care coordination and suboptimal risk factor control; social determinants, low socioeconomic status, reduced access to care; and mistrust of clinicians and the healthcare system.

SUMMARY

There are numerous opportunities to significantly lessen the disparities in kidney transplantation for AAs through the following measures: the adoption of new care and patient engagement models that include education, enhanced practice-level cultural sensitivity, and timely referral as well as increased research on the impact of the environment on genetic risk, and implementation of new transplantation-related policies. Key Messages: This systematic review describes pretransplant concerns related to access to kidney transplantation, posttransplant complications, and policy interventions to address the challenging issues associated with kidney transplantation in AAs.

New Organ Allocation System for Combined Liver-Kidney Transplants and the Availability of Kidneys for Transplant to Patients with Stage 4-5 CKD

A new proposal has been created for establishing medical criteria for organ allocation in recipients receiving simultaneous liver-kidney transplants. In this article, we describe the new policy, elaborate on the points of greatest controversy, and offer a perspective on the policy going forward. Although we applaud the fact that simultaneous liver-kidney transplant activity will now be monitored and appreciate the creation of medical criteria for allocation in simultaneous liver-kidney transplants, we argue that some of the criteria proposed, especially those for allocating a kidney to a liver recipient with AKI, are too liberal. We call on the nephrology community to follow the consequences of this new policy and push for a re-examination of the longstanding policy of allocating kidneys to multiorgan transplant recipients before all other candidates. The charge to protect our system of equitable organ allocation is very challenging, but it is a challenge that we must embrace.

Towards a standardised informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy: the PRINCE (Process of Informed Consent Evaluation) project-study protocol for a nationwide prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Informed consent is mandatory for all (surgical) procedures, but it is even more important when it comes to living kidney donors undergoing surgery for the benefit of others. Donor education, leading to informed consent, needs to be carried out according to certain standards. Informed consent procedures for live donor nephrectomy vary per centre, and even per individual healthcare professional. The basis for a standardised, uniform surgical informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy can be created by assessing what information donors need to hear to prepare them for the operation and convalescence.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The PRINCE (Process of Informed Consent Evaluation) project is a prospective, multicentre cohort study, to be carried out in all eight Dutch kidney transplant centres. Donor knowledge of the procedure and postoperative course will be evaluated by means of pop quizzes. A baseline cohort (prior to receiving any information from a member of the transplant team in one of the transplant centres) will be compared with a control group, the members of which receive the pop quiz on the day of admission for donor nephrectomy. Donor satisfaction will be evaluated for all donors who completed the admission pop-quiz. The primary end point is donor knowledge. In addition, those elements that have to be included in the standardised format informed consent procedure will be identified. Secondary end points are donor satisfaction, current informed consent practices in the different centres (eg, how many visits, which personnel, what kind of information is disclosed, in which format, etc) and correlation of donor knowledge with surgeons' estimation thereof.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval for this study was obtained from the medical ethical committee of the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, on 18 February 2015. Secondary approval has been obtained from the local ethics committees in six participating centres. Approval in the last centre has been sought.

RESULTS

Outcome will be published in a scientific journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR5374; Pre-results.

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Government Compensation of Kidney Donors

From 5000 to 10 000 kidney patients die prematurely in the United States each year, and about 100 000 more suffer the debilitating effects of dialysis, because of a shortage of transplant kidneys. To reduce this shortage, many advocate having the government compensate kidney donors. This paper presents a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of such a change. It considers not only the substantial savings to society because kidney recipients would no longer need expensive dialysis treatments--$1.45 million per kidney recipient--but also estimates the monetary value of the longer and healthier lives that kidney recipients enjoy--about $1.3 million per recipient. These numbers dwarf the proposed $45 000-per-kidney compensation that might be needed to end the kidney shortage and eliminate the kidney transplant waiting list. From the viewpoint of society, the net benefit from saving thousands of lives each year and reducing the suffering of 100 000 more receiving dialysis would be about $46 billion per year, with the benefits exceeding the costs by a factor of 3. In addition, it would save taxpayers about $12 billion each year.

When Opportunity Knocks Twice: Dual Living Kidney Donation, Autonomy and the Public Interest

Living kidney transplantation offers the best treatment in terms of life-expectancy and quality of life for those with end-stage renal disease. The long-term risks of living donor nephrectomy, although real, are very small, with evidence of good medium-term outcomes. Who should be entitled to donate, and in which circumstances, is nevertheless a live question. We explore the ethical dimensions of a request by an individual to donate both of their kidneys during life: 'dual living kidney donation'. Our ethical analysis is tethered to a hypothetical case study in which a father asks to donate a kidney to each of his twin boys. We explore the autonomy of the protagonists, alongside different dimensions of the public interest, such as the need to protect not only the recipients, but also the donor and even the wider community. Whilst acknowledging objections to 'dual-donation', not least by reference to the harms that the donor might be expected to endure, we suggest there is a prima facie case for permitting this, provided that both donor and recipients are willing and that due attention is paid to such considerations as the autonomy and welfare of all parties, as well as to the wider ramifications of acting on such a request. We argue for broader interpretations of the concepts of autonomy and welfare, recognizing the importance of relationships and the relevance of more than merely physical well-being. Equipped with such a holistic assessment, we suggest there is a prima facie case for allowing 'dual living kidney donation'.

Travel for transplantation in iran: pros and cons regarding Iranian model

Transplant tourism is one of the main unacceptable aspects of medical tourism, implicating travel to another country to receive an allograft. Organ shortages in wealthier countries have persuaded patients to preclude organ waiting lists and travel to other countries for getting organs especially kidneys. On the other hand, in many countries, there is no transplant program, and hemodialysis is expensive. Hence, patients with end-stage kidney disease may have to travel to get a kidney allograft for the sake of their lives. In Iran, a legal compensated and regulated living unrelated donor kidney transplant program has been adopted since 1988, in which recipients are matched with liveunrelated donors through the Iran Kidney Foundation and the recipients are compensated dually by the government and the recipient. In this model regulations were adopted to prevent transplant tourism: foreigners were not allowed to receive a kidney from Iranian donors or donate a kidney to Iranian patients; however, they could be transplanted from donors of their own nationality, after full medical workup, with the authorization of the Ministry of Health. This was first considered as a humanitarian assistance to patients of the countries with no transplant program and limited and low quality dialysis. However, the policy of "foreign nationality transplant" gradually established a spot where residents of many countries, where living-unrelated donor transplant was illegal, could bring their donors and be transplanted mainly in private hospitals, with high incentives for the transplant teams. By June 2014, six hundred eight foreign nationality kidney transplants were authorized by Ministry of Health for citizens for 17 countries. In this review, we examine the negative aspects of transplant for foreign citizens in Iran and the reasons that changed "travel for transplant" to "transplant tourism " in our country and finally led us to stop the program after more than 10 years.

Non-Integrated Information and Communication Technologies in the Kidney Transplantation Process in Brazil

The entire kidney transplantation process in Brazil is defined through laws, decrees, ordinances, and resolutions, but there is no defined theoretical map describing this process. From this representation it's possible to perform analysis, such as the identification of bottlenecks and information and communication technologies (ICTs) that support this process. The aim of this study was to analyze and represent the kidney transplantation workflow using business process modeling notation (BPMN) and then to identify the ICTs involved in the process. This study was conducted in eight steps, including document analysis and professional evaluation. The results include the BPMN model of the kidney transplantation process in Brazil and the identification of ICTs. We discovered that there are great delays in the process due to there being many different ICTs involved, which can cause information to be poorly integrated.

Understanding the Changes to the National Deceased Donor Allocation System

The national deceased donor kidney allocation system has not been changed since 1986. After many years of study and collaboration, a new policy to revise the system goes into effect on December 4, 2014. This new system is intended to increase access to kidney transplantation and improve the overall success rates. Although the majority of candidates will not be significantly affected by the changes, certain populations of patients are projected to have decreased waiting times. Transplant candidates expected to need a kidney the longest are also more likely to receive a kidney predicted to last the longest. Many educational resources have been provided to transplant centers and have also been made available to patients and referring physicians.

The impact of living-unrelated transplant on establishing deceased-donor liver program in Syria

Liver transplant is the criterion standard for patients with end-stage liver disease. Yet there is no liver transplant in Syria. Traveling abroad for a liver transplant is a luxury few Syrians can afford. There is currently an on-going debate whether to start a liver transplant program using living or deceased donors. In 2003, a new law was enacted, authorizing the use of organs from volunteer strangers and deceased donors. Despite the positive aspects of this law (allowing unrelated donors to increase the number of transplants in the country); the negative aspects also were obvious. The poor used the law to sell their organs to the rich, and this model is in violation of the Istanbul Declaration. To better document transplant communities' perceptions on organ donation, an e-mail survey was sent to a nationally representative sample of physicians (n = 115) that showed that 58% of respondents did not support the start of liver transplant from live donors, as they fear a considerable risk for the donor and the recipient. Seventy-one percent of respondents believe that unrelated kidney donation has contributed to tarnishing the reputation of transplant, and 56% believe that a deceased-donor program can run in parallel with unrelated organ donations. The interest in deceased-donor program has been affected negatively by the systematic approach of using poor persons as the source of the organ. This lack of interest has affected starting a liver program that relies on deceased donors; especially the need for kidneys is more than livers. Health authorities in Syria were inclined to initiate a liver transplant program from live donors, despite the risks of serious morbidities and mortality. In conclusion then, paid kidney donation in actual effect is actually a hindrance to establishing a deceased-donor liver program.

The impact of living-unrelated transplant on establishing deceased-donor liver program in Syria

Liver transplant is the criterion standard for patients with end-stage liver disease. Yet there is no liver transplant in Syria. Traveling abroad for a liver transplant is a luxury few Syrians can afford. There is currently an on-going debate whether to start a liver transplant program using living or deceased donors. In 2003, a new law was enacted, authorizing the use of organs from volunteer strangers and deceased donors. Despite the positive aspects of this law (allowing unrelated donors to increase the number of transplants in the country); the negative aspects also were obvious. The poor used the law to sell their organs to the rich, and this model is in violation of the Istanbul Declaration. To better document transplant communities' perceptions on organ donation, an e-mail survey was sent to a nationally representative sample of physicians (n = 115) that showed that 58% of respondents did not support the start of liver transplant from live donors, as they fear a considerable risk for the donor and the recipient. Seventy-one percent of respondents believe that unrelated kidney donation has contributed to tarnishing the reputation of transplant, and 56% believe that a deceased-donor program can run in parallel with unrelated organ donations. The interest in deceased-donor program has been affected negatively by the systematic approach of using poor persons as the source of the organ. This lack of interest has affected starting a liver program that relies on deceased donors; especially the need for kidneys is more than livers. Health authorities in Syria were inclined to initiate a liver transplant program from live donors, despite the risks of serious morbidities and mortality. In conclusion then, paid kidney donation in actual effect is actually a hindrance to establishing a deceased-donor liver program.

Assessing the likely harms to kidney vendors in regulated organ markets

Advocates of paid living kidney donation frequently argue that kidney sellers would benefit from paid donation under a properly regulated kidney market. The poor outcomes experienced by participants in existing markets are often entirely attributed to harmful black-market practices. This article reviews the medical and anthropological literature on the physical, psychological, social, and financial harms experienced by vendors under Iran's regulated system of donor compensation and black markets throughout the world and argues that this body of research not only documents significant harms to vendors, but also provides reasons to believe that such harms would persist under a regulated system. This does not settle the question of whether or not a regulated market should be introduced, but it does strengthen the case against markets in kidneys while suggesting that those advocating such a system cannot appeal to the purported benefits to vendors to support their case.

Impact of legal measures prevent transplant tourism: the interrelated experience of The Philippines and Israel

We describe the parallel changes that have taken place in recent years in two countries, Israel and The Philippines, the former once an "exporter" of transplant tourists and the latter once an "importer" of transplant tourists. These changes were in response to progressive legislation in both countries under the influence of the Declaration of Istanbul. The annual number of Israeli patients who underwent kidney transplantation abroad decreased from a peak of 155 in 2006 to an all-time low of 35 in 2011 while in the Philippines the annual number of foreign transplant recipients fell from 531 in 2007 to two in 2011. The experience of these two countries provides a "natural experiment" on the potential impact of legal measures to prevent transplant tourism.

The declaration of Istanbul in the Philippines: success with foreigners but a continuing challenge for local transplant tourism

The Philippine government officially responded to the Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and the related WHO Guidelines on organ transplantation by prohibiting all transplants to foreigners using Filipino organs. However, local tourists have escaped the regulatory radar, leaving a very wide gap in efforts against human trafficking and transplant tourism. Authorities need to deal with the situation seriously, at a minimum, by issuing clear procedures for verifying declarations of kinship or emotional bonds between donors and recipients. Foreigners who come to the country for transplants with same-nationality donors constitute a problem that is replicated in many transplant centers around the world. Also, emotionally related living donors continue to pose challenges for ethics committees, especially because of the realities associated with the existence of extended families. Those who find themselves facing these issues need to be armed with clear protocols for going through the process of verifying documents and individual declarations assiduously. There is also a need for international referral mechanisms at least to ensure that governments are aware when their citizens travel for transplant so they can take steps they consider suitable to address the vulnerabilities of exploited persons.

Non-standard kidneys for transplants: clinical margins, medical morality, and the law

Advances in kidney transplantation over the past six decades have been impressive, but have not eliminated the significant variability in outcome related to donor organ quality. Organ shortage means that, in addition to 'standard' deceased donor kidneys (SD), 'non-standard donor' (NSD), 'expanded criteria donor', or 'marginal' kidneys, which fail to meet standard criteria and are often associated with less good outcomes, are now being transplanted into selected recipients as a means of increasing the donor pool. A similar, but less-documented, practice has developed in living donation. This article outlines the clinical rationale and ethical argument underpinning the use of such donor kidneys and examines their legal status in the UK, which we claim remains largely undefined and untested. While it is probable that the general principles governing medico-legal consent and liability also apply to organ donation, the special circumstances of donation, notably the inadequate supply of donors and the emphasis on a 'gift relationship', make it difficult to know how far existing medico-legal precedents can or should apply. The non-standard status of deceased donor organs creates potential problems for the validity of 'appropriate consent' to donation required by statute. It may also be relevant to the use of interventions intended to optimise deceased donor organ quality. Furthermore, the SD/NSD distinction in clinical practice may produce unexpected legal effects. For example, the recent UK Regulations 2012, which bring into force the EU Directive on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation, could produce a negative legal restraint on the use of NSD kidneys. There is an urgent need for clarification of the effect of using NSDs in areas such as recipient and donor consent, liability for negligence, and the law of product liability.  Some argue that the need for non-standard organs results from society's failure to compel the retrieval of all suitable standard organs from the deceased as a community resource. However, the Human Tissue Acts of 2004 and 2006 (Scotland), which govern organ donation and transplantation in the UK, expressly require individual consent or authorisation in the decision to donate. This emphasis on individual autonomy appears to chime with prevailing public opinion. However, the sense of medico-legal security gained by uncritical observance of the existing law and of directives published under its authority may be an obstacle to the development of a system which adequately meets the needs of recipients while safeguarding donor autonomy.

This is my kidney, I should be able to do with it what I want: towards a legal framework for organ transplants in South Africa

In 2010 illegal kidney transplants performed in South African hospitals were exposed. Living donors (actually sellers) from Brazil and Romania were flown into South Africa where a kidney was harvested from each and transplanted into Israeli patients. The media reports that followed indicated an outcry against the sale of human kidneys. But by analysing the whole transplantation process from the point of view of each person involved in the transplantation, namely the recipient, the donor, the doctor and the black market in the background the feeling is created that a process of payment for a kidney seems fairer than the current way of procuring organs either legally or illegally.

The global role of kidney transplantation

World Kidney Day on March 8th 2012 provides a chance to reflect on the success of kidney transplantation as a therapy for end-stage kidney disease that surpasses dialysis treatments both for the quality and quantity of life that it provides and for its cost effectiveness. Anything that is both cheaper and better, but is not actually the dominant therapy, must have other drawbacks that prevent replacement of all dialysis treatment by transplantation. The barriers to universal transplantation as the therapy for end-stage kidney disease include the economic limitations which, in some countries place transplantation, appropriately, at a lower priority than public health fundamentals such as clean water, sanitation, and vaccination. Even in high-income countries, the technical challenges of surgery and the consequences of immunosuppression restrict the number of suitable recipients, but the major finite restrictions on kidney transplantation rates are the shortage of donated organs and the limited medical, surgical, and nursing workforces with the required expertise. These problems have solutions which involve the full range of societal, professional, governmental, and political environments. World Kidney Day is a call to deliver transplantation therapy to the one million people a year who have a right to benefit.

The global role of kidney transplantation

World Kidney Day on March 8 th 2012 provides a chance to reflect on the success of kidney transplantation as a therapy for end stage kidney disease that surpasses dialysis treatments both for the quality and quantity of life that it provides and for its cost effectiveness. Anything that is both cheaper and better, but is not actually the dominant therapy, must have other drawbacks that prevent replacement of all dialysis treatment by transplantation. The barriers to universal transplantation as the therapy for end stage kidney disease include the economic limitations which, in some countries place transplantation, appropriately, at a lower priority than public health fundamentals such as clean water, sanitation and vaccination. Even in high income countries the technical challenges of surgery and the consequences of immunosuppression restrict the number of suitable recipients, but the major finite restrictions on kidney transplantation rates are the shortage of donated organs and the limited medical, surgical and nursing workforces with the required expertise. These problems have solutions which involve the full range of societal, professional, governmental and political environments. World Kidney Day is a call to deliver transplantation therapy to the one million people a year who have a right to benefit.

The global role of kidney transplantation

World Kidney Day on March 8th 2012 provides a chance to reflect on the success of kidney transplantation as a therapy for end stage kidney disease that surpasses dialysis treatments both for the quality and quantity of life that it provides and for its cost effectiveness. Anything that is both cheaper and better, but is not actually the dominant therapy, must have other drawbacks that prevent replacement of all dialysis treatment by transplantation. The barriers to universal transplantation as the therapy for end stage kidney disease include the economic limitations which, in some countries place transplantation, appropriately, at a lower priority than public health fundamentals such as clean water, sanitation and vaccination. Even in high income countries the technical challenges of surgery and the consequences of immunosuppression restrict the number of suitable recipients, but the major finite restrictions on kidney transplantation rates are the shortage of donated organs and the limited medical, surgical and nursing workforces with the required expertise. These problems have solutions which involve the full range of societal, professional, governmental and political environments. World Kidney Day is a call to deliver transplantation therapy to the one million people a year who have a right to benefit.

Pakistan's kidney trade: an overview of the 2007 'Transplantation of Human Organs and Human Tissue Ordinance.' To what extent will it curb the trade?

Pakistan has the unenviable reputation for being one of the world's leading 'transplant tourism' destinations, largely the buying and selling of kidneys from its impoverished population to rich international patients. After nearly two decades of pressure to formally prohibit the trade, the Government of Pakistan promulgated the 'Transplantation of Human Organs and Human Tissue Ordinance' (THOTO) in 2007. This was then passed by Senate and enshrined in law in March 2010. This paper gives a brief overview of the organ trade within Pakistan and analyses the criteria of THOTO in banning the widespread practise. It then goes on to answer: 'To what extent will THOTO succeed in curbing Pakistan's kidney trade?' This is aided by the use of a comparative case study looking at India's failed organ trade legislation. This paper concludes THOTO has set a strong basis for curbing Pakistan's kidney trade. However, for this to be successfully achieved, it needs to be implemented with strong and sustained political will, strict and efficient enforcement as well as effective monitoring and evaluation. Efforts are needed to tackle both 'supply' and 'demand' factors of Pakistan's kidney trade, with developed countries also having a responsibility to reduce the flow of citizens travelling to Pakistan to purchase a kidney.

Custom, contract, and kidney exchange

In this Essay, we examine a case in which the organizational and logistical demands of a novel form of organ exchange (the nonsimultaneous, extended, altruistic donor (NEAD) chain) do not map cleanly onto standard cultural schemas for either market or gift exchange, resulting in sociological ambiguity and legal uncertainty. In some ways, a NEAD chain resembles a form of generalized exchange, an ancient and widespread instance of the norm of reciprocity that can be thought of simply as the obligation to “pay it forward” rather than the obligation to reciprocate directly with the original giver. At the same time, a NEAD chain resembles a string of promises and commitments to deliver something in exchange for some valuable consideration--that is, a series of contracts. Neither of these salient "social imaginaries" of exchange--gift giving or formal contract--perfectly meets the practical demands of the NEAD system. As a result, neither contract nor generalized exchange drives the practice of NEAD chains. Rather, the majority of actual exchanges still resemble a simpler form of exchange: direct, simultaneous exchange between parties with no time delay or opportunity to back out. If NEAD chains are to reach their full promise for large-scale, nonsimultaneous organ transfer, legal uncertainties and sociological ambiguities must be finessed, both in the practices of the coordinating agencies and in the minds of NEAD-chain participants. This might happen either through the further elaboration of gift-like language and practices, or through a creative use of the cultural form and motivational vocabulary, but not necessarily the legal and institutional machinery, of contract.