Normothermic Regional Perfusion-The Next Frontier in Organ Transplants?

This Viewpoint examines an approach known as normothermic regional perfusion, involving use of ECMO to restore perfusion to internal organs in situ before they are removed from a deceased donor.

Ethical analysis examining the prioritisation of living donor transplantation in times of healthcare rationing.

The transplant community has faced unprecedented challenges balancing risks of performing living donor transplants during the COVID-19 pandemic with harms of temporarily suspending these procedures. Decisions regarding postponement of living donation stem from its designation as an elective procedure, this despite that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services categorise transplant procedures as tier 3b (high medical urgency-do not postpone). In times of severe resource constraints, health systems may be operating under crisis or contingency standards of care. In this manuscript, the United Network for Organ Sharing Ethics Workgroup explores prioritisation of living donation where health systems operate under contingency standards of care and provide a framework with recommendations to the transplant community on how to approach living donation in these circumstances.To guide the transplant community in future decisions, this analysis suggests that: (1) living donor transplants represent an important option for individuals with end-stage liver and kidney disease and should not be suspended uniformly under contingency standards, (2) exposure risk to SARS-CoV-2 should be balanced with other risks, such as exposure risks at dialysis centres. Because many of these risks are not quantifiable, donors and recipients should be included in discussions on what constitutes acceptable risk, (3) transplant hospitals should strive to maintain a critical transplant workforce and avoid diverting expertise, which could negatively impact patient preparedness for transplant, (4) transplant hospitals should consider implementing protocols to ensure early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections and discuss these measures with donors and recipients in a process of shared decision-making.

Seeking justice rooted in truth, reconciliation and forgiveness.

This paper presents an overview of the philosophy and implementation of restorative justice practices, the challenges and accomplishments of which we examine across the arc of the twentieth and emerging twenty-first century. Restorative justice, we argue, is both counterintuitive and pragmatic in its application. We examine truth and reconciliation hearings, intentional peace communities, and other paragons of the restorative justice model from a macroscopic perspective. A case study offers a microscopic lens to the conflict-ridden communities in Chicago, IL, ground zero for the epidemic of handgun violence in the U. S. We conclude with a discussion of what pragmatic hope restorative justice practices might offer to embattled landscapes which stretch from foreign lands to our own communities.

Access to transplantation for persons with intellectual disability: Strategies for nondiscrimination.

Disqualifying patients with intellectual disabilities (ID) from transplantation has received growing attention from the media, state legislatures, the Office of Civil Rights, and recently the National Council on Disability, as well as internationally. Compared with evidence-based criteria used to determine transplant eligibility, the ID criterion remains controversial because of its potential to be discriminatory, subjective, and because its relationship to outcomes is uncertain. Use of ID in determining transplant candidacy may stem partly from perceived worse adherence and outcomes for patients with ID, fear of penalties to transplant centers for poor outcomes, and stigma surrounding the quality of life for people with ID. However, using ID as a contraindication to solid organ transplantation is not evidence-based and reduces equitable access to transplantation, disadvantaging an already vulnerable population. Variability and lack of transparency in referral and evaluation allows for gatekeeping, threatens patient autonomy, limits access to lifesaving treatment, and may be seen as unfair. We examine the benefits and harms of using ID as a transplant eligibility criterion, review current clinical evidence and ethical considerations, and make recommendations for transplant teams and regulatory agencies to ensure fair access to transplant for individuals with ID.