4.6 Article

Ethical Considerations for Participation of Nondirected Living Donors in Kidney Exchange Programs

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages 1460-1467

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03136.x

Keywords

ABO incompatibility; cross-matching; kidney exchanges; live donor transplantation; nondirected organ donation

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [IIS-0427858, IIS-0905390]
  2. Center for Computational Thinking at Carnegie Mellon University, funded by Microsoft Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Kidneys from nondirected donors (NDDs) have historically been allocated directly to the deceased donor wait list (DDWL). Recently, however, NDDs have participated in kidney exchange (KE) procedures, including KE 'chains', which have received considerable media attention. This increasing application of KE chains with NDD participation has occurred with limited ethical analysis and without ethical guidelines. This article aims to provide a rigorous ethical evaluation of NDDs and chain KEs. NDDs and bridge donors (BDs) (i.e. living donors who link KE procedures within KE chains) raise several ethical concerns including coercion, privacy, confidentiality, exploitation and commercialization. In addition, although NDD participation in KE procedures may increase transplant numbers, it may also reduce NDD kidney allocation to the DDWL, and disadvantage vulnerable populations, particularly O blood group candidates. Open KE chains (also termed 'never-ending' chains) result in a permanent diversion of NDD kidneys from the DDWL. The concept of limited KE chains is discussed as an ethically preferable means for protecting NDDs and BDs from coercion and minimizing 'backing out', whereas 'honor systems' are rejected because they are coercive and override autonomy. Recent occurrences of BDs backing out argue for adoption of ethically based protective measures for NDD participation in KE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available