Moral and ethical issues in living-donor liver transplant in Egypt.

OBJECTIVES: Since brain-death criteria are not accepted in Egypt, only organs acquired from living donors can be used for transplant. Our objective was to highlight the ethical issues raised by living-donor liver transplant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted by reviewing publications from centers performing living-donor liver transplant in Egypt and by consulting with a group of experts in the fields of liver transplantation, clinical ethics, and religious scholarship. RESULTS: The first successful living-donor liver transplant in Egypt was performed at the National Liver Institute in 1991; however, this program did not continue because of poor early results. In August 2002, transplants began at Dar-Al-Foaud Hospital; since then, almost 500 cases of living-donor liver transplant have been performed at 9 centers. Although the donor risk is estimated to be low, 2 donors died (0.4%). The ethical principle that best applies to living-donor liver transplant is primum non nocere (first, not to harm), as the donor derives emotional benefit fromdonation and the opportunity to save a life. It is important to stress that the alternative to living-donor liver transplant in Egypt is not deceased-donor liver transplant. There are no doubts that this is a beneficial procedure for the recipient with acceptable risks to the donor. CONCLUSIONS: It is ethically appropriate to perform liver transplant using living donors.

Patients seeking liver transplant turn to China: outcomes of 15 Egyptian patients who went to China for a deceased-donor liver transplant.

OBJECTIVES: Increasing numbers of Egyptians with end-stage liver disease seek liver transplants in China because of lower costs and shorter wait times.We evaluated outcomes of Egyptian patients who underwent liver transplants in China and address ethical concerns. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifteen Egyptian patients (11 men, 4 women; mean age, 52 years) who underwent liver transplants in China were included. Preoperative data before traveling to China, reports from China, and follow-up data upon return were reviewed. RESULTS: Indications included hepatitis-C-related liver cirrhosis (n=9), hepatitis-C-related liver cirrhosis with hepatocellular carcinoma (n=4), and hepatitis-B-related liver cirrhosis (n=2). Nine patients were evaluated for living-related liver transplant but none of their potential donors was suitable. Three patients had advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and were not accepted for living-related liver transplant by any Egyptian center. Two patients had no living-related donor. One patient refused a living-related liver transplant in Egypt and elected to get a whole liver graft from China. Overall survival rate was 80.0% at 6 months and 73.3% at 12 months. There were 4 deaths; 2 occurred in China. Of the 11 surviving patients, 9 (82%) developed complications. Nineteen complications were seen in the 13 patients who were managed after returning from China. Major complications necessitating prolonged hospitalizations occurred in 4 patients. Two patients required further laparotomy. CONCLUSIONS: Although deceased-donor liver transplant in China could be an option for Egyptian patients with end-stage liver disease, patients and clinicians should be aware of potential outcomes and related ethical issues.