Report From a Multidisciplinary Symposium on the Future of Living Kidney Donor Transplantation.

Virtually all clinicians agree that living donor renal transplantation is the optimal treatment for permanent loss of kidney function. Yet, living donor kidney transplantation has not grown in the United States for more than 2 decades. A virtual symposium gathered experts to examine this shortcoming and to stimulate and clarify issues salient to improving living donation. The ethical principles of rewarding kidney donors and the limits of altruism as the exclusive compelling stimulus for donation were emphasized. Concepts that donor incentives could save up to 40 000 lives annually and considerable taxpayer dollars were examined, and survey data confirmed voter support for donor compensation. Objections to rewarding donors were also presented. Living donor kidney exchanges and limited numbers of deceased donor kidneys were reviewed. Discussants found consensus that attempts to increase living donation should include removing artificial barriers in donor evaluation, expansion of living donor chains, affirming the safety of live kidney donation, and assurance that donors incur no expense. If the current legal and practice standards persist, living kidney donation will fail to achieve its true potential to save lives.

Opioid discontinuation as an institutional mandate: Questions and answers on why we wrote to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

On March 6, 2019, a self-designated committee sent a public letter to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) urging the agency to address the widespread misapplication of its 2016 guideline on prescribing opioids. Three hundred and eighteen health care professionals, and three former Directors of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (Drug Czars) signed the letter, as did the parent organization for Substance Abuse Journal, the Association for Multidisciplinary Education and Research on Substance use and Addiction. The letter reflected concern about a wide range of initiatives and policies by payers, quality metric agencies, health care organizations, and other regulators enforced to strongly incentivize or mandate forced opioid dose reductions on long-term opioid recipients who were otherwise stable. In April of 2019, both the United States Food and Drug Administration and the CDC's Director issued statements that could help to reduce ongoing harms resulting from such forced reductions, provided they are taken seriously. This commentary explains the rationale for the original letter, and the optimum course of action now that the CDC has responded.

Delivering services to individuals with severe mental illness: SAMHSA falls short.

In the wake of the December 2012 mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and its role in caring for people with severe mental illness. The author was among those who testified at the hearing. In this Open Forum she raises points made in that hearing-for example, that in embracing the recovery model and certain evidence-based practices, SAMHSA has been derelict in its duty to attend to the sickest individuals, those with chronic psychosis. She calls on the agency to embrace and promote a more balanced and pragmatic agenda.

Addiction and the brain-disease fallacy.

From Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience by Sally Satel and Scott Lilienfeld, copyright © 2013. Reprinted by permission of Basic Books, a member of The Perseus Books Group. The notion that addiction is a "brain disease" has become widespread and rarely challenged. The brain-disease model implies erroneously that the brain is necessarily the most important and useful level of analysis for understanding and treating addiction. This paper will explain the limits of over-medicalizing - while acknowledging a legitimate place for medication in the therapeutic repertoire - and why a broader perspective on the problems of the addicted person is essential to understanding addiction and to providing optimal care. In short, the brain-disease model obscures the dimension of choice in addiction, the capacity to respond to incentives, and also the essential fact people use drugs for reasons (as consistent with a self-medication hypothesis). The latter becomes obvious when patients become abstinent yet still struggle to assume rewarding lives in the realm of work and relationships. Thankfully, addicts can choose to recover and are not helpless victims of their own "hijacked brains."

Incentives for organ donation: proposed standards for an internationally acceptable system.

Incentives for organ donation, currently prohibited in most countries, may increase donation and save lives. Discussion of incentives has focused on two areas: (1) whether or not there are ethical principles that justify the current prohibition and (2) whether incentives would do more good than harm. We herein address the second concern and propose for discussion standards and guidelines for an acceptable system of incentives for donation. We believe that if systems based on these guidelines were developed, harms would be no greater than those to today's conventional donors. Ultimately, until there are trials of incentives, the question of benefits and harms cannot be satisfactorily answered.

In defense of a regulated system of compensation for living donation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The organ shortage is the major problem in kidney transplantation today. Despite aggressive organ procurement efforts, the supply of donated kidneys, living and deceased, has not matched the growing demand; as a consequence, more and more qualified candidates are suffering on dialysis and then dying before being transplanted. Herein, we provide justification for a regulated system of compensation for donation. RECENT FINDINGS: The main argument in favor of compensation is simple-financial incentives will increase donation, so fewer transplant candidates will suffer and die while waiting. In addition, development of a regulated system of compensation is the most effective means of crippling the core economic support for transplant tourism. Because dialysis is so much more expensive than a transplant, compensated donation could be cost-neutral to the healthcare system. Importantly, opinion polls suggest that the public would support compensation. As uncompensated kidney donation is widely accepted, persuasive arguments against compensation must explain why such a system would be morally distinguishable from uncompensated donation. SUMMARY: We suggest that the potential advantages of a regulated system of compensation for donation far outweigh any potential disadvantages. It is time to advocate for a change in the law so that trials can be done.

Is caffeine addictive?--a review of the literature.

The common-sense use of the term addiction is that regular consumption is irresistible and that it creates problems. Caffeine use does not fit this profile. Its intake does no harm to the individual or to society and its users are not compelled to consume it. Though cessation of regular use may result in symptoms such as headache and lethargy, these are easily and reliably reversed by ingestion of caffeine. Some have argued that continued caffeine use is an attempt to suppress low grade withdrawal symptoms such as sleepiness and lethargy. In some moderate users, this is possible; however, in experimental contexts, the phenomenon is too inconsistent to constitute a reliably valid syndrome.

The Institute of Medicine report: too quick to diagnose bias.

The Institute of Medicine report, Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care, claims that medical studies document a systematic causal relationship between race and disparities in health inputs and outcomes among individuals of different races. This article argues that the majority of studies are not powerful enough to establish a causal link, since they do not sufficiently control for differences among patients that happen to correlate with race, and it outlines a powerful audit study that could isolate any effect of race on health care decisions. Even if there are race-based disparities in health inputs, evaluations of welfare and policy prescriptions should be based on health outcomes, since the relationship between care and health is, at least in some cases, weak.