Another Defense of Abortion: What Transplant Ethics Tells Us about the Ethics of Abortion after Dobbs.

In 1971, two years before Roe v. Wade affirmed federal protection for abortion, Judith Jarvis Thomson attempted to demonstrate the wrongs of forced gestation through analogy: you awake to find that the world's most esteemed violinist is wholly, physically dependent on you for life support. Here, the authors suggest that Thomson's intuition, that there is a relevant similarity between providing living kidney support and forced gestation, is realized in the contemporary practice of living organ donation. After detailing the robust analogy between living kidney donation and gestation, we turn to current ethical guidelines incorporated in the United Network for Organ Sharing's requirements for legally authorized organ donation and transplantation. We conclude that if, as we-and Thomson-suggest, organ donation and gestation are relevantly similar, then the ethical framework supporting donation may aid in articulating ethical grounds that will be compelling in informing the legal grounds for a defense of abortion.

Surgical Regret and Intraoperative Decision-Making: A Living Donor Kidney Case.

Surgical regret often experienced at times of a great loss may cause a surgeon to reflect on their practice and intraoperative decision-making. It is inevitable that in the surgical profession, both in training and practice, a surgeon's decisions will be questioned by themselves, peers, and possibly patients. Here, we explore a case of living donor kidney donation in which the surgeon chooses to discontinue the operation for an incidental finding. Ultimately, this is against the patient's wishes and a decision over which both the surgeon and patient experience moral hazard and regret. This article explores surgical regret from the lens of an altruistic donor case and a surgeon's inaction, discussing the ethics of the operative decision-making and surgeon's viewpoint intra- and post-operatively.

Time to Abolish Metrics That Sustain Systemic Racism in Kidney Allocation.

This Viewpoint discusses how the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) in its current form is not fit to guide kidney allocation because it devalues organ donation by Black donors based on a weak association between donor race and kidney transplant failure.

Ethical Solutions to the Problem of Organ Shortage.

Organ shortage is a major survival issue for millions of people worldwide. Globally 1.2 million people die each year from kidney failure. In this paper, we critically examine and find lacking extant proposals for increasing organ supply, such as opting in and opt out for deceased donor organs, and parochial altruism and paired kidney exchange for live organs. We defend two ethical solutions to the problem of organ shortage. One is to make deceased donor organs automatically available for transplant without requiring consent from the donor or their relatives. The other is for society to buy nonvital organs in a strictly regulated market and provide them to people in need for free.

Legislación, ética y trasplante renal / Legislation, ethics and renal transfer

El trasplante renal (TR) es la mejor opciónterapéutica para los pacientes con insuficiencia renalcrónica en términos de supervivencia, calidad de viday relación coste-efectividad. La diferencia fundamentaldel TR con respecto a otras terapias es que su realización depende de la disponibilidad de órganos parauso clínico, disponibilidad que resulta insuficiente paracubrir las crecientes necesidades de trasplante de lapoblación. Otro aspecto relevante del trasplante esque conlleva el riesgo de transmisión de enfermedadesde donante a receptor, riesgo que puede minimizarse,pero no eliminarse por completo. Por sus característicasy su naturaleza única (el ser humano), el TR exige unaregulación específica que garantice la protección detodos los participantes en el proceso: los donantes y susfamilias, los pacientes con necesidad de un trasplante,los receptores de órganos y los profesionales sanitariosimplicados. En este artículo se revisan los estándaresético-legales que regulan la práctica de la donación y elTR a nivel internacional y se analiza el marco ético-legalque resulta de aplicación en España.(AU)

Kidney transplantation (KT) is the best therapeutic option for patients with end-stage renal diseasein terms of survival, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.The fundamental difference of KT with respect to othertherapies is that the process depends on the availabilityof organs for clinical use, availability that is insufficientto cover the increasing transplantation needs of the population. Another relevant feature of transplantation is thatit entails a risk of transmission of diseases from donor torecipient, a risk that can be minimized, but not completely eliminated. Due to its characteristics and its unique nature (the human being), KT requires a specific regulationthat guarantees the protection of all those who participate in the process: donors and their families, patientsin need of a transplant, recipients of organs and healthcare professionals involved. In this article, we reviewthe ethical-legal standards that regulate the practice ofkidney donation and transplantation at the internationallevel and analyze the ethical-legal framework that is applicable in Spain.(AU)

"You cannot stay in the laboratory forever"*: Taking pig kidney xenotransplantation from the laboratory to the clinic.

Progress in life-supporting kidney transplantation in the genetically-engineered pig-to-nonhuman primate model has been encouraging, with pig kidneys sometimes supporting life for > 1 year. What steps need to be taken by (i) the laboratory team, and (ii) the clinical team to prepare for the first clinical trial? The major topics include (i) what currently-available genetic modifications are optimal to reduce the possibility of graft rejection, (ii) what immunosuppressive therapeutic regimen is optimal, and (iii) what steps need to be taken to minimize the risk of transfer of an infectious microorganism with the graft. We suggest that patients who are unlikely to live long enough to receive a kidney from a deceased human donor would benefit from the opportunity of a period of dialysis-free support by a pig kidney, and the experience gained would enable xenotransplantation to progress much more rapidly than if we remain in the laboratory.

Marginal parent donors-Process and ethics.

BACKGROUND: Pre-emptive kidney transplantation for end-stage kidney disease in children has many advantages and may lead to the consideration of marginal parent donors. METHODS: Using the example of the transplant of a kidney with medullary sponge disease from a parent to the child, we review the ethical framework for working up such donors. RESULTS: The four principles of health ethics include autonomy (the right of the patient to retain control over his/her own body); beneficence (healthcare providers must do all they can do to benefit the patient in each situation); non-maleficence ("first do no harm"-providers must consider whether other people or society could be harmed by a decision made, even if it is made for the benefit of an individual patient) and justice (there should be an element of fairness in all medical decisions). Highly motivated donors may derive significant psychological benefit from their donation and may thus be willing to incur more risk. The transplantation team and, ideally, an independent donor advocate team must make a judgment about the acceptability of the risk-benefit ratio for particular potential donors, who must also make their own assessment. The transplantation team and donor advocate team must be comfortable with the risk-benefit ratio before proceeding. CONCLUSIONS: An independent donor advocacy team that focuses on the donor needs is needed with sufficient multidisciplinary ethical, social, and psychological expertise. The decision to accept or reject the donor should be within the authority of the independent donor advocacy team and not the providers or the donor.

Deceased by default: Consent systems and organ-patient mortality.

Previous research shows that countries with opt-out consent systems for organ donation conduct significantly more deceased-donor organ transplantations than those with opt-in systems. This paper investigates whether the higher transplantation rates in opt-out systems translate into equally lower death rates among organ patients registered on a waiting list (i.e., organ-patient mortality rates). We show that the difference between consent systems regarding kidney- and liver-patient mortality rates is significantly smaller than the difference in deceased-donor transplantation rates. This is likely due to different incentives between the consent systems. We find empirical evidence that opt-out systems reduce incentives for living donations, which explains our findings for kidneys. The results imply that focusing on deceased-donor transplantation rates alone paints an incomplete picture of opt-out systems' benefits, and that there are important differences between organs in this respect.

Race, Kidney Transplants, Immunosuppression Research, and White Supremacy under Apartheid, 1960-80.

This paper uses the history of kidney transplantation in South Africa as a lens through which to write a racialized, micro history that illustrates the politics of medical discoveries and medical research at one of South Africa's most prestigious medical research universities, the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) in Johannesburg. Between 1966 and the 1980s, the Wits team became the most advanced and prolific kidney transplant unit in the country. Yet the racist, oppressive Apartheid system fundamentally shaped these developments. Transplantation, as this paper shows, became an elite medical procedure, performed by a select group of white doctors on mostly white patients. For these doctors, transplantation showed their medical prowess and displayed the technical advancements they were able to make in research and clinical practice as they strove to position South Africa as a significant international player in medical research, despite academic boycotts and increasing sanctions. Transplantation became a symbol of white supremacy in a country where the black majority were excluded from anything but the most basic health care.

Delayed Implantation of Pumped Kidneys Decreases Renal Allograft Futility in Combined Liver-Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Combined liver-kidney transplantation (CLKT) improves survival for liver transplant recipients with renal dysfunction; however, the tenuous perioperative hemodynamic and metabolic milieu in high-acuity CLKT recipients increases delayed graft function and kidney allograft failure. We sought to analyze whether delayed KT through pumping would improve kidney outcomes following CLKT. METHODS: A retrospective analysis (University of California Los Angeles [n = 145], Houston Methodist Hospital [n = 79]) was performed in all adults receiving CLKT at 2 high-volume transplant centers from February 2004 to January 2017, and recipients were analyzed for patient and allograft survival as well as renal outcomes following CLKT. RESULTS: A total of 63 patients (28.1%) underwent delayed implantation of pumped kidneys during CLKT (dCLKT) and 161 patients (71.9%) received early implantation of nonpumped kidneys during CLKT (eCLKT). Most recipients were high-acuity with median biologic model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score of, 35 for dCLKT and 34 for eCLKT (P = ns). Pretransplant, dCLKT had longer intensive care unit stay, were more often intubated, and had greater vasopressor use. Despite this, dCLKT exhibited improved 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient and kidney survival (P = 0.02) and decreased length of stay (P = 0.001), kidney allograft failure (P = 0.012), and dialysis duration (P = 0.031). This reduced kidney allograft futility (death or continued need for hemodialysis within 3 mo posttransplant) for dCLKT (6.3%) compared with eCLKT (19.9%) (P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed implantation of pumped kidneys is associated with improved patient and renal allograft survival and decreased hospital length of stay despite longer kidney cold ischemia. These data should inform the ethical debate as to the futility of performing CLKT in high-acuity recipients.

Ethical challenges in nephrology: a call for action.

The American Society of Nephrology, the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association and the International Society of Nephrology Joint Working Group on Ethical Issues in Nephrology have identified ten broad areas of ethical concern as priority challenges that require collaborative action. Here, we describe these challenges - equity in access to kidney failure care, avoiding futile dialysis, reducing dialysis costs, shared decision-making in kidney failure care, living donor risk evaluation and decision-making, priority setting in kidney disease prevention and care, the ethical implications of genetic kidney diseases, responsible advocacy for kidney health and management of conflicts of interest - with the aim of highlighting the need for ethical analysis of specific issues, as well as for the development of tools and training to support clinicians who treat patients with kidney disease in practising ethically and contributing to ethical policy-making.

Ways to Overcome Organ Shortage: Increasing Donor Pool by Accepting Suboptimal Kidney Donors.

Many factors affect organ donations worldwide, including religious factors, legislative decisions, economic factors, presence of organ procurement organizations, cultural issues, the presence of commercial transplant, and other unknown factors. The number of patients with end-stage renal disease has increased by 6% worldwide. Even with more transplant procedures, these numbers have not combated the dramatically increased number of patients on wait lists. With regard to potential living donors, around 50% are either blood group or HLA incompatible with the recipient, which then requires patient desensitization or paired kidney donation or a combination of both. Survival rates of kidney donors and the general population are almost the same 35 to 40 years after donation. Although the renal consequences of diabetes after kidney donation are almost the same as that shown in the general population, other risk factors should be considered, such as hypertension, proteinuria, and low glomerular filtration rate, before donation. It is so far unknown whether donors with impaired glucose tolerance can safely donate. With diabetes, what was considered normal blood sugar in 1960 to 1990 is now considered frank diabetes. What was considered normal blood pressure is now considered hypertension. Because individuals with these parameters were accepted as organ donors in the past and have been shown to maintain good health, it is worth considering the safe use of organs from donors with early diabetes and hypertension. Whereas young donors may have not reached the age at which hypertension, diabetes, and other kidney diseases develop, older donors have the lowest likelihood of developing end-stage renal disease after donation. As a general approach, young donors can be accepted if they have high glomerular filtration rate, but young donors from certain ethnic minorities and/or extensive family history of chronic kidney disease and those less than 18 years old should not be considered.

Will you give my kidney back? Organ restitution in living-related kidney transplantation: ethical analyses.

In this article, we perform a thought experiment about living donor kidney transplantation. If a living kidney donor becomes in need of renal replacement treatment due to dysfunction of the remaining kidney after donation, can the donor ask the recipient to give back the kidney that had been donated? We call this problem organ restitution and discussed it from the ethical viewpoint. Living organ transplantation is a kind of 'designated donation' and subsequently has a contract-like character. First, assuming a case in which original donor (A) wishes the return of the organ which had been transplanted into B, and the original recipient (B) agrees, organ restitution will be permissible based on contract-like agreement. However, careful and detailed consideration is necessary to determine whether this leaves no room to question the authenticity of B's consent. Second, if B offers to give back the organ to A, then B's act is a supererogatory act, and is praiseworthy and meritorious. Such an offer is a matter of virtue, not obligation. Third, if A wishes B to return the organ, but B does not wish/allow this to happen, it is likely difficult to justify returning the organ to A by violating B's right to bodily integrity. But B's refusal to return the donated organ cannot be deemed praiseworthy, because B forgets the great kindness once received from A. Rather than calling this an obligation, we encourage B to consider such virtuous conduct.

Patient's Perspectives of Experimental HCV-Positive to HCV-Negative Renal Transplantation: Report from a Single Site.

Background: With growing transplant wait times, clinical trials are evaluating the safety and efficacy of transplanting HCV-infected donor (HCV+) organs into HCV-noninfected recipients (HCV D+/R-). Such transplants raise ethical questions about safety, consent, and access to organs. Methods: We interviewed eight of the ten total HCV D+/R- transplant recipients enrolled in a pilot clinical trial examining the safety and feasibility of these novel transplants regarding their experiences in the trial, including their decision-making and perceptions of the informed consent process. Results: All interviewees reported positive experiences and expressed confidence regarding their decision to participate. Participants accepted an HCV + organ based on their assessments of the risks and potential benefits of HCV D+/R- transplants. For many, the risks of HCV were minimal compared to the risks of not receiving a transplant. All participants recalled providing informed consent, reporting that the process was thorough and that all their questions were addressed. Participants did not regret receiving an HCV D+/R- transplant and did not report experiencing stigma. However, given their understanding of HCV cure rates in the general population and the survival benefit associated with kidney transplantation, participants may have conflated research regarding HCV D+/R- transplantation with clinical care, suggesting a potential therapeutic misconception. Conclusions: Recipients of experimental HCV D+/R- transplants generally seemed to recognize the risks and benefits of these novel transplants and did not regret participating. Such salutary reported experiences are important in assessing the appropriateness of further research into the feasibility of HCV D+/R- transplants.

Is obesity a contraindication for kidney donation?

INTRODUCTION: To enlarge the donor pool, kidney donors with obesity have been considered. We hypothesized that it is safe for patients with obesity to serve as living kidney donors. METHODS: In this single-center retrospective analysis, we examined the effect of obesity (body mass index (BMI) of 30-35 kg/m2) on glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and creatinine in patients undergoing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Other outcomes included intraoperative, 30-, and 90-day complications. We examined the trajectory between patients with obesity versus patients without obesity over time using mixed effects models for the outcomes of creatinine in mg/dL and GFR in mL/min/1.73 m2. RESULTS: Among donors with obesity versus donors without obesity, there were no significant differences in demographics or comorbidities. Baseline creatinine in donors with obesity was significantly greater than that of donors without obesity (p = 0.02). Operative time was significantly longer in donors with obesity versus without obesity (p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in 30-day morbidity between donors with obesity versus without obesity (6.52 vs. 3.57%, respectively; p = 0.38). The rate of graft complications was 8.7% in donors with obesity versus 7.1% in donors without obesity (p = 1.0). 90-day complications were infrequent, and not significant different between the groups. At 6, 12, and 24-month postoperative follow-up, the mean creatinine level in patients with obesity was not significantly different from that of patients without obesity (1.23 vs. 1.31, 1.23 vs. 1.26, and 1.17 vs. 1.19 at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively). Mean GFR was also not significantly different at 6, 12, and, 24 months. CONCLUSION: Postoperative creatinine and GFR changes were not significantly different in patients with obesity versus without obesity after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. These findings suggest that carefully screened living kidney donors with obesity do not experience decreased postoperative renal function.