Is Organ Retransplantation Among Undocumented Immigrants in the United States Just?

Numerous undocumented children in the United States with end-stage renal disease undergo kidney transplantation funded by charitable donation or state-sponsored Medicaid. However, when these funding sources expire by adulthood, most are unable to pay for follow-up appointments and immunosuppressive medications necessary for maintenance of their organ. The organs fail and patients are then left with the options of retransplantation or a lifetime of dialysis. The dilemma of retransplantation introduces many questions regarding justice and fairness. This commentary addresses several ethical concerns about the special case of organ retransplantation for undocumented patients. Clinical guidelines and a clear public policy for best practices are needed to adequately address the challenge of retransplantation and maintenance immunosuppression in this population.

Reuse of cardiac organs in transplantation: an ethical analysis.

BACKGROUND: This paper examines the ethical aspects of organ transplant surgery in which a donor heart is transplanted from a first recipient, following determination of death by neurologic criteria, to a second recipient. Retransplantation in this sense differs from that in which one recipient undergoes repeat heart transplantation of a newly donated organ, and is thus referred to here as "reuse cardiac organ transplantation." METHODS: Medical, legal, and ethical analysis, with a main focus on ethical analysis. RESULTS: From the medical perspective, it is critical to ensure the quality and safety of reused organs, but we lack sufficient empirical data pertaining to medical risk. From the legal perspective, a comparative examination of laws in the United States and Japan affirms no illegality, but legal scholars disagree on the appropriate analysis of the issues, including whether or not property rights apply to transplanted organs. Ethical arguments supporting the reuse of organs include the analogous nature of donation to gifts, the value of donations as inheritance property, and the public property theory as it pertains to organs. Meanwhile, ethical arguments such as those that address organ recycling and identity issues challenge organ reuse. CONCLUSION: We conclude that organ reuse is not only ethically permissible, but even ethically desirable. Furthermore, we suggest changes to be implemented in the informed consent process prior to organ transplantation. The organ transplant community worldwide should engage in wider and deeper discussions, in hopes that such efforts will lead to the timely preparation of guidelines to implement reuse cardiac organ transplantation as well as reuse transplantation of other organs such as kidney and liver.

Prioritization of Reimplantation in Previously Successful Cochlear Implantation Following Natural Device Failure.

INTRODUCTION: Cochlear reimplantation procedures account for approximately 5% of all implant cases and may be caused by internal device failure, skin flap complications, or an unexpected decline in auditory performance. This issue, in concert with changing demographics, expanded audiometric candidacy criteria, adult bilateral implantation, and implantation for unilateral hearing loss, all place escalating pressure on device availability and resource allocation in a publically funded health care system. OBJECTIVE: The predictable and problematic access to a scare medical resource requires rigor in establishing program priority and formal policy. We present a single cochlear implant center's working reflections and an attempt at a principled approach to rationing health care decisions. METHODS: Different approaches to health care rationing are examined and discussed. We describe a method of allocation that is currently employed by a large Canadian quaternary care center and ground this method in important principles of distributive justice as they apply to health care systems. RESULTS: We elect to recognize device failure as analogous to sudden sensorineural hearing loss, with the associated need to expedite reimplantation. We consider this an ethical approach grounded in the egalitarian principle of equality of opportunity within cohorts of patients. CONCLUSION: Porting the practice from sudden sensorineural hearing loss, the time-sensitive need for hearing restoration, and maximized communication outcomes, dictates prioritization for this patient population. The predicted evolution of health systems globally and the shape of future medical practice will be heavily influenced by both the macro and micro level resource-dependent decisions implant centers currently face.

[Surgery for metastases, anatomical and ethical limits. Special aspect: oligometastases]. / Metastasenchirurgie - anatomische und ethische Grenzen. Besonderer Aspekt: Oligometastasierung.

The surgical resection of metastases is nowadays feasible in selected patients with multifocal metastatic disease due to the implementation of interdisciplinary multimodal therapeutic options. Anatomical limitations do not seem to represent obstacles which cannot be overcome because of the development of new surgical techniques. The cornerstone of the selection of patients is the correct staging diagnosis achieved through modern diagnostic tools; however, surgery alone does not always offer acceptable survival and recurrence-free rates. Furthermore, in every complex surgical procedure there is the risk of morbidity and mortality; therefore, parameters such as alternative therapeutic modalities, the individual situation of the patient and tumor biology have to be considered in order to make the correct selection of patients. This is one of the major future challenges and should never be driven by unfounded hopes and expectations of the patients. The same principle also applies for brain metastases, which represent the most common brain tumors. Approximately 70 % of patients with brain metastases have 1-3 lesions (oligometastases). Treatment is now individualized and the goal of therapy has shifted towards long-term survival (≥ 24 months) and improved quality of life. Under this aspect surgery is one of the important treatment options, particularly in patients with a single metastasis or oligometastases. Furthermore, approximately 20 % of patients who have recurrent brain metastases, successfully undergo a complete resection of tumors and with a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score > 70 show a long-term survival of ≥ 24 months.

Revisional metabolic/bariatric surgery: a moral obligation.

Revisional metabolic/bariatric surgery is a moral obligation; for not to perform revisional surgery is a denial of the precepts of our discipline and an abandonment of the underprivileged population who has placed its trust and future in our hands.

Are patients open to elective re-sampling of their glioblastoma? A new way of assessing treatment innovations.

BACKGROUND: This is a qualitative study designed to examine patient acceptability of re-sampling surgery for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) electively post-therapy or at asymptomatic relapse. METHODS: Thirty patients were selected using the convenience sampling method and interviewed. Patients were presented with hypothetical scenarios including a scenario in which the surgery was offered to them routinely and a scenario in which the surgery was in a clinical trial. RESULTS: The results of the study suggest that about two thirds of the patients offered the surgery on a routine basis would be interested, and half of the patients would agree to the surgery as part of a clinical trial. Several overarching themes emerged, some of which include: patients expressed ethical concerns about offering financial incentives or compensation to the patients or surgeons involved in the study; patients were concerned about appropriate communication and full disclosure about the procedures involved, the legalities of tumor ownership and the use of the tumor post-surgery; patients may feel alone or vulnerable when they are approached about the surgery; patients and their families expressed immense trust in their surgeon and indicated that this trust is a major determinant of their agreeing to surgery. CONCLUSION: The overall positive response to re-sampling surgery suggests that this procedure, if designed with all the ethical concerns attended to, would be welcomed by most patients. This approach of asking patients beforehand if a treatment innovation is acceptable would appear to be more practical and ethically desirable than previous practice.

Fourth time cardiac retransplantation.

Beginning at age 11 years, our patient has had four heart transplants. Now, 26 years later at age 37, he is fully active. This case is presented to document a unique experience and to consider the difficult decision-making process and ethical issues of multiple cardiac retransplantation.

Maternal request for caesarean section: an ethical consideration.

Caesarean section (CS) is a method of delivering a baby through a surgical incision into the abdominal wall. Until recently in the UK, it was preserved as a procedure which was only carried out in certain circumstances. These included if the fetus lay in a breech position or was showing signs of distress leading to a requirement for rapid delivery. CS is perceived as a safe method of delivery due to the recommendation by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in these situations. As a result, the opportunity for maternal request for CS arose, whereby the mother requests the operation despite no medical indication. There are risks associated with CS, as with all surgery, however, these risks in current and future pregnancies may not be fully understood by the mother. The ethics of exposing mothers to these risks, as well as performing surgery on what is otherwise a healthy patient, become entangled with the demand for patient choice, as well as the increasing financial strain on our healthcare system. The main question to be examined in this essay is whether it is ethical to allow women to choose a CS in the absence of obstetric indication, taking into account the increased risk to the mother and her future offspring in order to potentially decrease the risk to the current baby. Alongside a case report, this analysis will apply Beauchamp and Childress' four principles of biomedical ethics and an exploration of the scientific literature.

Intestinal retransplant in a patient after fungal sepsis: considerations and issues.

An adolescent female received an isolated intestinal transplant. She developed severe exfoliative rejection and required complete enterectomy. The patient developed a septic hip and lung lesions with biopsy-proven Aspergillus nidulans and was treated with caspofungin, ambiosome, and voriconizole. After completing a year of treatment and extensive physical therapy, the patient requested retransplant. The case was presented to the ethics committee, which determined that the patient demonstrated understanding of the risks and benefits. Infectious disease consultants presented data showing high risk for fungal recurrence. Quality of life as observed by our transplant team seemed good and the patient had no other indications. Retransplant is associated with higher risk than first transplants. Does the team have the right to deny retransplant if the competent patient requests transplant despite high risk? Guidelines for this indication are complex and evolving.

Should patients who use illicit drugs be offered a second heart-valve replacement?

Intravenous drug users (IVDUs) have an elevated risk of contracting infectious endocarditis. Most of them have good effect from medical treatment, but some will need valve replacement. Until a few years ago, our hospital withheld valve surgery if patients with intravenous drug dependency and infectious endocarditis came to need a second valve replacement. However, there are no consensus guidelines for treatment of this group of patients, and a dearth of data on the effects and benefits of interventions. Using a method of ethical analysis, we here discuss whether it is appropriate to offer valve surgery to drug users for a second time.

[Dying with living donor transplantation]. / Sterbend mit Lebendspende.

A female patient with primary sclerosing cholangitis developed a cholangiocarcinoma (Klatskin tumor) at the age of 42 years. It was successfully resected by hemihepatectomy and hepaticojejunostomy. In the next 15 years she had recurrent episodes of bacterial cholangitis and had to be hospitalized several times a year for intravenous antibiotics. At the same time the sclerosing cholangitis progressed and she developed liver cirrhosis. The patient, who was never willing to give up, underwent liver transplantation by receiving the left liver lobe of her daughter (living donor). Postoperatively she suffered from severe complications including a biliary leak, sepsis, intraabdominal abscesses and cachexia. Soon after she was dismissed by the transplantation center, she was admitted to our hospital in a very poor condition. She refused any further intensive care and died, with the well functioning donated left liver lobe of the daughter dying with her.

Ethical considerations in revision rhinoplasty.

The problems that arise when reviewing another surgeon's work, the financial aspects of revision surgery, and the controversies that present in marketing and advertising will be explored. The technological advances of computer imaging and the Internet have introduced new problems that require our additional consideration.

One and done? Equality of opportunity and repeated access to scarce, indivisible medical resources.

BACKGROUND: Existing ethical guidelines recommend that, all else equal, past receipt of a medical resource (e.g. a scarce organ) should not be considered in current allocation decisions (e.g. a repeat transplantation). DISCUSSION: One stated reason for this ethical consensus is that formal theories of ethics and justice do not persuasively accept or reject repeated access to the same medical resources. Another is that restricting attention to past receipt of a particular medical resource seems arbitrary: why couldn't one just as well, it is argued, consider receipt of other goods such as income or education? In consequence, simple allocation by lottery or first-come-first-served without consideration of any past receipt is thought to best afford equal opportunity, conditional on equal medical need.There are three issues with this view that need to be addressed. First, public views and patient preferences are less ambiguous than formal theories of ethics. Empirical work shows strong preferences for fairness in health care that have not been taken into account: repeated access to resources has been perceived as unfair. Second, while difficult to consider receipt of many other prior resources including non-medical resources, this should not be used a motive for ignoring the receipt of any and all goods including the focal resource in question. Third, when all claimants to a scarce resource are equally deserving, then use of random allocation seems warranted. However, the converse is not true: mere use of a randomizer does not by itself make the merits of all claimants equal. SUMMARY: My conclusion is that not ignoring prior receipt of the same medical resource, and prioritizing those who have not previously had access to the medical resource in question, may be perceived as fairer and more equitable by society.