Road To Deceased Donor Transplantation in Egypt.

In Egypt, there is presently a growing need to have a deceased donor transplant program. Egypt conducted its first kidney transplant from a living donor in 1976 and a first partial liver transplant in 2001. Since 2009, the Egyptian Health Authorities Combat Transplant Tourism in concordance with ethics codes and the Declaration of Istanbul Custodian Group has been in place. The Egyptian Transplantation Law of 2011 mentions that organs could be procured from deceased donors based on a will and on family consent. This law has had many critics, including religious authorities who have stressed that organs cannot be taken from a person with brain death because, in their view, life ends with death of all organs. Many intensivists disagree over the definition of death. In addition, the media has communicated contradicting and sometimes misleading health care information. Mummification is rooted in pharos practice and linked to religious beliefs. The ancient Egyptians believed that, by burying the deceased with their organs, they may rejoin with them in the afterlife. Since 2019, the transplant community in Egypt has started collaborations with international transplant organizations and campaigns with doctors and celebrities to donate their organs after death, which have stressed that a deceased donor program could help against end-stage organ mortality. In November 2022, after communications with politicians, President Abdelfattah El Sisi directed the government to establish a regional center for organ transplantation, which aimed to be the biggest in the Middle East and North Africa region. The new center will be part of a new medical city that would replace Nasser Medical Institution in Cairo, Egypt. The Ministry of Health issued an official form to be signed by a person before his death, accepting use of organs, to give hope and support to other patients in need.

Transplantation in the Context of Migration and Refugees: A Summary of the DICG and TTS Ethics Committee Workshop, Buenos Aires, Argentina, September 2022.

Global conflicts and humanitarian crises have resulted in an unprecedented number of refugees and migrants. This challenges the limited resources of health care systems and jeopardizes the availability of transplant care for these deserving migrants and refugees. This was the basis for a workshop held during the Congress of the Transplantation Society (Buenos Aires, 2022). We elaborate on the proceedings of the workshop entitled "Transplantation in the Context of Migration and Refugees," organized by the Ethics Committee of The Transplantation Society and Declaration of Istanbul Custodian Group. Transplant providers from around the world shared strategies of how each region has responded to providing access to care for refugees and migrants in need of transplant services. The potential exploitation of this vulnerable group leading to illicit organ removal was addressed for each region. The Transplantation Society, Declaration of Istanbul Custodian Group, and global transplant community should continue to focus on the status of refugees and migrants and collaborate on strategies to provide access to transplant care for this deserving population. Global cooperation will be essential to provide vigilant oversight to prevent exploitation of this vulnerable population.

Canadian Society of Transplantation White Paper: Ethical and Legal Considerations for Alcohol and Cannabis Use in Solid Organ Listing and Allocation.

Alcohol and cannabis use as a contraindication to organ transplantation is a controversial issue. Until recently, patients in Canada with alcohol-associated liver disease were required to demonstrate abstinence for 6 mo to receive a liver transplant. There is no equivalent rule that is applied consistently for cannabis use. There is some evidence that alcohol and cannabis use disorder pretransplant could be associated with worse outcomes posttransplantation. However, early liver transplantation for patients with alcohol-associated liver disease in France and in the United States has led to challenges of the 6-mo abstinence rule in Canada in the media. It has also resulted in several legal challenges arguing that the rule violates human rights laws regarding discrimination in the provision of medical services and that the rule is also unconstitutional (this challenge is still before the court). Recent legalization of cannabis use for adults in Canada has led to questions about the appropriateness of limiting transplant access based on cannabis use. The ethics committee of the Canadian Society of Transplantation was asked to provide an ethical analysis of cannabis and alcohol abstinence policies. Our conclusions were as follows: neither cannabis use nor the 6-mo abstinence rule for alcohol use should be an absolute contraindication to transplantation, and transplant could be offered to selected patients, further research should be conducted to ensure evidence-based policies; and the transplant community has a duty not to perpetuate stigma associated with alcohol and cannabis use disorders.

Uncontrolled Donation After Circulatory Death: A Unique Opportunity.

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory death (uDCD) refers to donation from persons who die following an unexpected and unsuccessfully resuscitated cardiac arrest. Despite the large potential for uDCD, programs of this kind only exist in a reduced number of countries with a limited activity. Barriers to uDCD are of a logistical and ethical-legal nature, as well as arising from the lack of confidence in the results of transplants from uDCD donors. The procedure needs to be designed to reduce and limit the impact of the prolonged warm ischemia inherent to the uDCD process, and to deal with the ethical issues that this practice poses: termination of advanced cardiopulmonary resuscitation, extension of advanced cardiopulmonary resuscitation beyond futility for organ preservation, moment to approach families to discuss donation opportunities, criteria for the determination of death, or the use of normothermic regional perfusion for the in situ preservation of organs. Although the incidence of primary nonfunction and delayed graft function is higher with organs obtained from uDCD donors, overall patient and graft survival is acceptable in kidney, liver, and lung transplantation, with a proper selection and management of both donors and recipients. Normothermic regional perfusion has shown to be critical to achieve optimal outcomes in uDCD kidney and liver transplantation. However, the role of ex situ preservation with machine perfusion is still to be elucidated. uDCD is a unique opportunity to improve patient access to transplantation therapies and to offer more patients the chance to donate organs after death, if this is consistent with their wishes and values.

Triage during the COVID-19 epidemic in Spain: better and worse ethical arguments.

The COVID-19 pandemic has generated an imbalance between the clinical needs of the population and the effective availability of advanced life support (ALS) resources. Triage protocols have thus become necessary. Triage decisions in situations of scarce resources were not extraordinary in the pre-COVID-19 era; these protocols abounded in the context of organ transplantation. However, this prior experience was not considered during the COVID-19 outbreak in Spain. Lacking national guidance or public coordination, each hospital has been forced to put forth independent and autonomous triage protocols, most of which were, nonetheless, based on common ethical principles and clinical criteria. However, controversial, non-clinical criteria have also been defended by Spanish scientific societies and public institutions, including setting an age cut-off value for unilaterally withholding ALS, using 'social utility' criteria, prioritising healthcare professionals or using 'first come, first served' policies. This paper describes the most common triage criteria used in the Spanish context during the COVID-19 epidemic. We will highlight our missed opportunities by comparing these criteria to those used in organ transplantation protocols. The problems posed by subjective, non-clinical criteria will also be discussed. We hope that this critical review might be of use to countries at earlier stages of the epidemic while we learn from our mistakes.

The ethical debate over child priority in post-mortem organ allocation: A scoping review and practical-ethical outlook.

BACKGROUND: Organ allocation guidelines in many countries give children relative priority, but the normative justification of child priority is seldom articulated. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a scoping review of the recent international literature (2013-2019) to identify moral positions and normative frameworks to justify or criticize pediatric priority in all kind of organ allocation. We identified 11 relevant papers. RESULTS: Our analysis revealed a complex juxtaposition of pro and contra argumentations along three main normative lines: a) equal treatment of each individual, b) individual benefit, and c) social benefit and the public good. The general type of argument can be found independent of the organ allocated. For each of these three lines we identified and categorized two types of argumentations: those in favor and those critical of the priority rule. Additionally, we discuss a problematic issue that has not yet been mentioned in the literature, namely the effects of age thresholds related to child-priority rules in organ allocation. We illustrate this problem with an analysis of selected German data with allocated postmortal kidneys and livers. These data show non-normal distributions of organ transplantations and waiting times for patients between the ages of 16 and 19. DISCUSSION: Our overview serves as a matrix to reconsider existing guideline policy. The review can assist policy makers or experts on organ allocation committees in increasing the transparency of child priority rules, in explaining their justifications, and in reforming existing guidelines.

Evolving ethical issues with advances in uterus transplantation.

While uterus transplantation was once considered only a theoretical possibility for patients with uterine factor infertility, researchers have now developed methods of transplantation that have led to successful pregnancies with multiple children born to date. Because of the unique and significant nature of this type of research, it has been undertaken with collaboration not only with scientists and physicians but also with bioethicists, who paved the initial path for research of uterus transplantation to take place. As the science of uterus transplantation continues to advance, so too must the public dialogue among obstetrician/gynecologists, transplant surgeons, bioethicists, and other key stakeholders in defining the continued direction of research in addition to planning for the clinical implementation of uterus transplantation as a therapeutic option. Given the rapid advances in this field, the time has come to revisit the fundamental questions raised at the inception of uterus transplantation and, looking forward, determine the future of this approach given emerging data on the procedure's impact on individuals, families, and society.

Assessment of Somatic Support Process for Pregnant Brain Death Patients Occurring in a Transition Country Between Asia and Europe from Medical, Ethical, Legal and Religious Aspects.

In spite of the fact that brain death during pregnancy is not a common occurrence, it is an important ethical problem for all cultures and religions can have a significant influence on the donation decision after brain death. Therefore, this study aimed to present the case of a pregnant patient developing brain death which occurred in our intensive care unit and to compare the medical, ethical and legal problems relating to pregnant cases developing brain death with 24 cases in the literature. A 21-year-old 19-week pregnant case with gestational diabetes was monitored in the anesthesia intensive care unit and developed brain death due to intracranial mass and intraventricular hemorrhage. Though brain death is a situation well understood by organ transplant professionals, brain death developing in pregnant patients still involves many medical, ethical and legal problems.

Pure Altruistic Gift and the Ethics of Transplant Medicine.

The article argues that altruistic giving based on anonymity, which is expected to promote social solidarity and block trade in human body parts, is conceptually defective and practically unproductive. It needs to be replaced by a more adequate notion which responds to the human practices of giving and receiving. The argument starts with identification of the main characteristics of the anonymous altruistic donation: social separation of the organ donor (or donor family) from the recipient, their mutual replaceability, non-obligatoriness of donation, and non-obligatoriness of reciprocation on the recipient's part. Since these characteristics are also central to typical market relations, anonymous altruistic donation not only cannot promote solidarity but may encourage proposals for (regulated) markets of transplantable organs. Thus, transplant ethics needs to be reframed. It needs to be rooted in, rather than promote, the practices of giving and receiving known to human societies. As the basis for such reframing, the idea of sharing in another's misfortune is proposed. It relies on the human practices of giving and receiving and, with appropriate regulatory safeguards, can provide a better conceptual basis for blocking commercial exchanges of human body parts.

Should Lack of Social Support Prevent Access to Organ Transplantation?

Transplantation programs commonly rely on clinicians' judgments about patients' social support (care from friends or family) when deciding whether to list them for organ transplantation. We examine whether using social support to make listing decisions for adults seeking transplantation is morally legitimate, drawing on recent data about the evidence-base, implementation, and potential impacts of the criterion on underserved and diverse populations. We demonstrate that the rationale for the social support criterion, based in the principle of utility, is undermined by its reliance on tenuous evidence. Moreover, social support requirements may reinforce transplant inequities, interfere in patients' personal relationships, and contribute to biased and inconsistent listing procedures. As such, accommodating the needs of patients with limited social support would better balance ethical commitments to equity, utility, and respect for persons in transplantation. We suggest steps for researchers, transplantation programs, and policymakers to improve fair use of social support in transplantation.

Will more organs save more lives? Cost-effectiveness and the ethics of expanding organ procurement.

The assumption that procuring more organs will save more lives has inspired increasingly forceful calls to increase organ procurement. This project, in contrast, directly questions the premise that more organ transplantation means more lives saved. Its argument begins with the fact that resources are limited and medical procedures have opportunity costs. Because many other lifesaving interventions are more cost-effective than transplantation and compete with transplantation for a limited budget, spending on organ transplantation consumes resources that could have been used to save a greater number of other lives. This argument has not yet been advanced in debates over expanded procurement and could buttress existing concerns about expanded procurement. To support this argument, I review existing empirical data on the cost-effectiveness of transplantation and compare them to data on interventions for other illnesses. These data should motivate utilitarians and others whose primary goal is maximizing population-wide health benefits to doubt the merits of expanding organ procurement. I then consider two major objections: one makes the case that transplant candidates have a special claim to medical resources, and the other challenges the use of cost-effectiveness to set priorities. I argue that there is no reason to conclude that transplant candidates' medical interests should receive special priority, and that giving some consideration to cost-effectiveness in priority setting requires neither sweeping changes to overall health priorities nor the adoption of any specific, controversial metric for assessing cost-effectiveness. Before searching for more organs, we should first ensure the provision of cost-effective care.

Uterus transplantation in women who are genetically XY.

Uterus transplantation is an emerging technology adding to the arsenal of treatments for infertility; specifically the only available treatment for uterine factor infertility. Ethical investigations concerning risks to uteri donors and transplant recipients have been discussed in the literature. However, missing from the discourse is the potential of uterus transplantation in other groups of genetically XY women who experience uterine factor infertility. There have been philosophical inquiries concerning uterus transplantation in genetically XY women, which includes transgender women and women with complete androgen insufficiency syndrome. We discuss the potential medical steps necessary and associated risks for uterus transplantation in genetically XY women. Presently, the medical technology does not exist to make uterus transplantation a safe and effective option for genetically XY women, however this group should not be summarily excluded from participation in trials. Laboratory research is needed to better understand and reduce medical risk and widen the field to all women who face uterine factor infertility.

Is Organ Retransplantation Among Undocumented Immigrants in the United States Just?

Numerous undocumented children in the United States with end-stage renal disease undergo kidney transplantation funded by charitable donation or state-sponsored Medicaid. However, when these funding sources expire by adulthood, most are unable to pay for follow-up appointments and immunosuppressive medications necessary for maintenance of their organ. The organs fail and patients are then left with the options of retransplantation or a lifetime of dialysis. The dilemma of retransplantation introduces many questions regarding justice and fairness. This commentary addresses several ethical concerns about the special case of organ retransplantation for undocumented patients. Clinical guidelines and a clear public policy for best practices are needed to adequately address the challenge of retransplantation and maintenance immunosuppression in this population.

The Dead Donor Rule as Policy Indoctrination.

Since the 1960s, organ procurement policies have relied on the boundary of death-advertised as though it were a factual, value-free, and unobjectionable event-to foster organ donation while minimizing controversy. Death determination, however, involves both discoveries of facts and events and decisions about their meaning (whether the facts and events are relevant to establish a vital status), the latter being subjected to legitimate disagreements requiring deliberation. By revisiting the historical origin of the dead donor rule, including some events that took place in France prior to the report by the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death, I want to recall that those who first promoted the DDR did not take into account any scientific rationale to support the new proposed criteria to determine death. Rather, through a process of factual re-semantization, they authorized themselves to decide about the meaning of death in order to implicitly prioritize the interests of organ recipients over those of dying people.

Uterus transplants and the insufficient value of gestation.

Uterus transplants provide another treatment for infertility. Some might think that we should embrace such transplants as one more way to assist people to have children. However, in this paper I argue that uterus transplants are not something that we ought to fund, nor something that we should make easy to access. First, I argue that any justification of providing uterus transplants must be based on the value of the experience of gestation, rather than on claims of meeting medical need or promoting normal functioning. Second, I demonstrate that such a justification has limited prospects of success. The value of experiencing gestation is unlikely to be sufficient to justify state funding of uterus transplants and, further, we have reason to refrain from enabling such transplants.

Financing uterus transplants: The United States context.

The first baby has successfully been born by uterus transplantation (UTx) in the United States and the procedure is swiftly becoming a viable clinical option for patients with uterine factor infertility (UFI). This raises a practical ethical question: should health insurers finance UTx and what issues should they consider in coming to this decision? The article lays forth some of the factors that shape the decision over whether to finance UTx in the United States, including what procedures must be covered, whether UTx is more like organ transplantation or infertility treatment (which are treated differently in the United States), and the benefits and alternatives of the procedure. Then, the article explores arguments around why UTx should be financed, or at least considered along with other important medical needs. The paper argues that UTx ought to be considered along with other competing claims for healthcare services. In countries that generously cover other infertility services, it may logically follow that medical services that enable gestation should be insured when the healthcare system covers services to conceive. In the United States, however, many groups have long suffered inadequate access to medical care, in the context of infertility and more broadly. U.S. healthcare may need to be made more widely equitable, before covering UTx is seen as financially or politically possible.