Should the family have a role in deceased organ donation decision-making? A systematic review of public knowledge and attitudes towards organ procurement policies in Europe.

GOAL: To assess public knowledge and attitudes towards the family's role in deceased organ donation in Europe. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in CINHAL, MEDLINE, PAIS Index, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science on December 15th, 2017. Eligibility criteria were socio-empirical studies conducted in Europe from 2008 to 2017 addressing either knowledge or attitudes by the public towards the consent system, including the involvement of the family in the decision-making process, for post-mortem organ retrieval. Screening and data collection were performed by two or more independent reviewers for each record. RESULTS: Of the 1482 results, 467 studies were assessed in full-text form, and 33 were included in this synthesis. When the deceased has not expressed any preference, a majority of the public support the family's role as a surrogate decision-maker. When the deceased expressly consented, the respondents' answers depend on whether they see themselves as potential donors or as a deceased's next-of-kin. Answers also depend on the relationship between the deceased and the decision-maker(s) within the family, and on their ethnic or cultural background. CONCLUSIONS: Public views on the authority of the family in organ donation decision-making requiere further research. A common conceptual framework and validated well-designed questionnaires are needed for future studies. The findings should be considered in the development of Government policy and guidance regarding the role of families in deceased organ donation.

Protection of Human Beings Trafficked for the Purpose of Organ Removal: Recommendations.

This report presents a comprehensive set of recommendations for protection of human beings who are trafficked for the purpose of organ removal or are targeted for such trafficking. Developed by an interdisciplinary group of international experts under the auspices of the project Trafficking in Human Beings for the Purpose of Organ Removal (also known as the HOTT project), these recommendations are grounded in the view that an individual who parts with an organ for money within an illegal scheme is ipso facto a victim and that the crime of trafficking in human beings for the purpose of organ removal (THBOR) intersects with the crime of trafficking in organs. Consequently, the protection of victims should be a priority for all actors involved in antitrafficking activities: those combating organ-related crimes, such as health organizations and survivor support services, and those combating trafficking in human beings, such as the criminal justice sectors. Taking into account the special characteristics of THBOR, the authors identify 5 key stakeholders in the protection of human beings trafficked for organ removal or targeted for such trafficking: states, law enforcement agencies and judiciary, nongovernmental organizations working in the areas of human rights and antitrafficking, transplant centers and health professionals involved in transplant medicine, and oversight bodies. For each stakeholder, the authors identify key areas of concern and concrete measures to identify and protect the victims of THBOR. The aim of the recommendations is to contribute to the development of a nonlegislative response to THBOR, to promote the exchange of knowledge and best practices in the area of victim protection, and to facilitate the development of a policy-driven action plan for the protection of THBOR victims in the European Union and worldwide.

The Relevance of Directive 2010/53/EU for Living Organ Donation Practice: An ELPAT View.

With the recent transposition of Directive 2010/53/EU into the transplant regulation of EU Member States, the time is right to have a closer look at its implications for living organ donation practice. We first discuss the relevance of the Action Plan which forms the basis for the policy of the European Commission in the field of organ donation and transplantation. We then analyze the impact of Directive 2010/53/EU which was adopted to support the implementation of the Priority Actions set out in the Action Plan. We more specifically focus on the obligations of transplant centers engaged in living organ donation and highlight their significance for clinical practice. Finally, we point out some strengths and weaknesses of the Directive in addressing living organ donation.

Dealing With Public Solicitation of Organs From Living Donors--An ELPAT View.

Although transplant professionals have initially been reluctant to perform transplants after public solicitation of organs from living donors, nowadays these transplants are increasingly being performed and reported. After clarifying the existing terminology, we elaborate an operational definition of public solicitation that is consistent with the Ethical, Legal, and Psychosocial Aspects of Transplantation classification for living organ donation. Our aim is to critically assess this phenomenon, from a legal, moral, and practical perspective, and to offer some recommendations. From a legal point of view, we analyze the current situation in the Europe and the United States. From a moral perspective, we evaluate the various arguments used in the literature, both in favor and against. Finally, we offer a set of recommendations aimed at maximizing the organ donor pool while safeguarding the interests of potential living donors.

Anonymity and live-donor transplantation: an ELPAT view.

Anonymity of donors or recipients in living-donor transplantation is a complex issue and practice varies widely. There are compelling arguments for maintaining anonymity of both parties before unspecified donor transplantation and specified indirect transplantation. After transplantation, there are still good reasons to avoid disclosure of identities. Although anonymity could be lifted if both parties explicitly request it, there are significant, potentially negative consequences of such an approach. Both donor and recipient should be counseled regarding these, and transplant teams should consider the considerable financial and psychosocial costs if problems are encountered as a result of contact. Given the recent rise in the number of unspecified living-donor transplants and through paired exchange schemes, it is vital that data are collected regarding the effects of maintaining or revoking anonymity after transplantation.

Living organ donation practices in Europe - results from an online survey.

In Europe, living organ donation (LOD) is increasingly accepted as a valuable solution to overcome the organ shortage. However, considerable differences exist between European countries regarding frequency, practices and acceptance of donor-recipient relations. As a response, the Coordination Action project 'Living Organ Donation in Europe' (www.eulod.eu), funded by the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Commission, was initiated. Transplant professionals from 331 European kidney and liver transplant centres were invited to complete an online survey on living kidney donation (LKD) and living liver donation (LLD). In total, 113 kidney transplant centres from 40 countries and 39 liver transplant centres from 24 countries responded. 96.5% and 71.8% performed LKD and LLD respectively. The content of the medical screening of donors was similar, but criteria for donor acceptance varied. Few absolute contraindications for donation existed. The reimbursement policies diverged and the majority of the donors did not get reimbursed for their income loss during recovery. Large discrepancies were found between geographical European regions (the Eastern, the Mediterranean and the North-Western). As a result of this survey we suggest several recommendations to improve quality and safety of LOD in Europe.

New classification of ELPAT for living organ donation.

In the literature, varying terminology for living organ donation can be found. However, there seems to be a need for a new classification to avoid confusion. Therefore, we assessed existing terminology in the light of current living organ donation practices and suggest a more straightforward classification. We propose to concentrate on the degree of specificity with which donors identify intended recipients and to subsequently verify whether the donation to these recipients occurs directly or indirectly. According to this approach, one could distinguish between "specified" and "unspecified" donation. Within specified donation, a distinction can be made between "direct" and "indirect" donation.