Legislative proposal in Italy to facilitate contacts between deceased organ donor families and transplant recipients.

Contacts between organ donors and recipients might be possible in the near future in Italy. As suggested by The Italian Committee of Bioethics "anonymity is requested by the Italian National Transplant Centre" before transplantation anonymity shall be strict in order to grant privacy, gratuity, justice, solidarity and benefits and avoids organ trafficking. Following a period that is ethically correct and justifiable, organ donor families and recipients can meet after signing a valid declaration of consent, expressed on a template valid for the whole country. A third party within the body of the National Health Systems shall control the validity of the consent. The opinion stresses that contacts are not a right but a possibility justifiable on ethical grounds if the procedure is followed appropriately. A legislative proposal has been presented before the Chamber of deputies incorporating all suggestions made by the National Committee of Bioethics. The agreement between parties might be signed a year after transplantation. This is a long enough period of time for the recipients to fully appreciate the benefits of the procedure and for the donor families to see the effects of their decision (the opinion and the Law proposal hit the Zeitgeist, and keep Italy in the regulation of European Union).

[Laws regulating transplantation should express the contemporaneity. Questions to the constitutionalist Francesco Paolo Casavola and to the philosophers Remo Bodei and Aldo Masullo about the possibility deciding the destiny of one's own organs at the time one decides on how to die and on contacts between donor families and recipients.]

Transplantation represents modernity thus the laws regulating the procedure should be continuously renovated and remodeled in order to take full advantage of progress. The debate is about Law no. 219, December 22, 2017 and on Law no. 222, April 1, 1999. The quests are a) about the possibility to modify the first so that people deciding on how they want to die, may also decide about their willingness to allow the removal of their organs for transplantation and b) the possibility for donor families and recipients to have contacts after transplantation in the case both sides agree. Questions were emailed to the constitutionalist Francesco Paolo Casavola, immediate Past President of the National Committee for Bioethics, and to the philosophers Remo Bodei and Aldo Masullo. Their answers received by September 16, support the idea a) to include in the Law no. 219, 2017 the possibility to decide not only on the modality one wants to die but also on the possibility to allow his own organs to be removed for transplantation and b) to liberalize contacts between donor families and recipients when both side agree. For both changes there is enough evidence of their feasibility-necessity. The answers related to contacts between donor families and recipients support the decision of the National Committee for Bioethics on September 27, 2018. Professor Casavola also suggests that contacts should organized and supervised by the ethical committees of the hospitals where the transplantation procedure is accomplished.

Effects of efficiency and length of acetate-free biofiltration session on postdialysis solute rebound.

BACKGROUND: Postdialytic rebound (PDR) of plasma solutes is a relevant drawback of intermittent hemodialysis, but its pathophysiological process remains undefined. We assessed the independent effects of efficiency and length of dialytic session on PDR of urea, phosphate, and potassium. METHODS: Uremic patients were evaluated at the beginning and end of dialysis and after 180 minutes in 2 randomized crossover studies. In study 1, we compared the effect of standard versus higher efficiency acetate-free biofiltration (AFB) while maintaining the same duration of 4 hours. In study 2, we compared the effect of 3- versus 5-hour AFB sessions while maintaining similar efficiency. RESULTS: In study 1, greater Kt/V (1.49 +/- 0.20 versus 1.22 +/- 0.15; P < 0.0001) was coupled with significant increases in both absolute removal and PDR of urea and phosphate (PDR of urea, +45% versus +29%; PDR of phosphate, +79% versus +52%), but not of potassium. Similarly, in study 2, shortening the AFB session while maintaining similar absolute removal and Kt/V (1.28 +/- 0.09 versus 1.31 +/- 0.09) significantly increased PDR of urea and phosphate (PDR of urea, +32% versus +19%; PDR of phosphate, +63% versus +36%), but not of potassium. In both studies, greater PDRs of urea and phosphate were associated with estimated greater removal of these solutes per hour. CONCLUSION: The rate of removal of phosphate and urea is a critical determinant of their PDR; conversely, potassium is not influenced by removal rate, likely because of its marked cell compartmentalization.