Living-unrelated kidney donor transplantation: Legalization in exceptional circumstances?

The prevalence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) morbidity and mortality is mounting. Kidney transplantation offers a good means of survival and improves longevity of patients with ESRD. However, not everyone is fortunate to benefit from this lifesaving renal replacement therapy due to the lack of available kidneys, one of the many reasons. It eventually expands the number of patients on waiting list of kidney transplantation. At present, deceased and living-related kidney donor transplantation models are widely used, but with limited success to keep up with the pace of burgeoning ESRD. A debate over the legalization of unrelated living kidney donor transplantation has erupted lately. This short review articles focuses on issues surrounding kidney transplantation in Pakistan and draws an informed conclusion regarding pragmatic legalization of unrelated living kidney donor transplantation in exceptional circumstances. Finally, this article also offers a food for thought for countries facing analogous picture in the field of kidney transplantation.

Avances hacia una regulación de la gestación por sustitución en España en base al modelo regulado en el Estado de California / No disponible

La Ley 14/2006, de 26 de mayo no ha autorizado la gestación por sustitución. Ello implica la exclusión injustificada del uso de las técnicas de reproducción humana asistida a los hombres y mujeres con incapacidad para gestar y, por ello, de la posibilidad de crear su familia a través de dichas tecnologías. Este problema se resolvería en la medida en que se regulase en el Derecho español un modelo de gestación por sustitución bajo la condición de que fuera respetuoso con los derechos de las partes intervinientes en dicho proceso. Para contribuir al avance hacia la eventual regulación en España de esta técnica reproductiva, hemos tomado como referencia el modelo establecido en el Californian surrogacy Law

The Law 14/2006 of 26 may has not authorized the surrogacy. This implies the unjustified exclusion of using human assisted reproduction techniques for women and men unable to gestate and, therefore, to create their family through these techniques. This problem could be solved if a model of surrogacy were regulated in Spanish Law emphasizing the respect for the rights of the parties involved in the process. In contributing to the progress towards the eventual regulation in Spain of the surrogacy reproductive technique, we have taken as reference the model established in the Californian Surrogacy Law

The impact of living-unrelated transplant on establishing deceased-donor liver program in Syria.

Liver transplant is the criterion standard for patients with end-stage liver disease. Yet there is no liver transplant in Syria. Traveling abroad for a liver transplant is a luxury few Syrians can afford. There is currently an on-going debate whether to start a liver transplant program using living or deceased donors. In 2003, a new law was enacted, authorizing the use of organs from volunteer strangers and deceased donors. Despite the positive aspects of this law (allowing unrelated donors to increase the number of transplants in the country); the negative aspects also were obvious. The poor used the law to sell their organs to the rich, and this model is in violation of the Istanbul Declaration. To better document transplant communities' perceptions on organ donation, an e-mail survey was sent to a nationally representative sample of physicians (n = 115) that showed that 58% of respondents did not support the start of liver transplant from live donors, as they fear a considerable risk for the donor and the recipient. Seventy-one percent of respondents believe that unrelated kidney donation has contributed to tarnishing the reputation of transplant, and 56% believe that a deceased-donor program can run in parallel with unrelated organ donations. The interest in deceased-donor program has been affected negatively by the systematic approach of using poor persons as the source of the organ. This lack of interest has affected starting a liver program that relies on deceased donors; especially the need for kidneys is more than livers. Health authorities in Syria were inclined to initiate a liver transplant program from live donors, despite the risks of serious morbidities and mortality. In conclusion then, paid kidney donation in actual effect is actually a hindrance to establishing a deceased-donor liver program.

Sperm donor recruitment, attitudes and provider practices--5 years after the removal of donor anonymity.

STUDY QUESTION: Has the change in donor anonymity legislation in UK affected the recruitment of men wanting to be sperm donors and also affected the attitudes of the practitioners who provide donor sperm treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: We have performed fewer IUI and IVF treatments using donor sperm following the change in legislation in April 2005 than before. However, we have seen an overall increase in men wanting to donate their sperm, including a small increase in men from ethnic minorities. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Sweden, which removed donor anonymity in 1985, had an initial drop in men wanting to donate and then 10 years later started to have an increase. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and other studies in the UK have shown an overall downward trend, but have not been able to compare large time scales either side of the change in legislation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a retrospective descriptive study that looked at all men who approached the clinic between the years 2000 and 2010, i.e. 5 years either side of the change in legislation (April 2005). Overall, we had 24 men wanting to be donors prior to the rule change and 65 men after the rule change. We also investigated the total number of all treatments with donor sperm, and this included a total of 1004 donor sperm treatments prior to the change in legislation and 403 donor sperm treatments after the change in legislation. PARTICIPANTS, SETTING, METHODS: The study was set in an NHS IVF clinic in South East London. We compared the indicators of service provision, provider practices and donor attitudes, in the period between April 2000 and March 2005 (Group A) with those between April 2005 and March 2010 (Group B), i.e. 5 years either side of the change in legislation. MAIN RESULTS: There were 875 IUI treatments and 129 IVF or ICSI treatments in Group A and 325 IUI and 78 IVF/ICSI treatments in Group B with the use of donor sperm, of which, 11.9% (119 out of 1004) in Group A and 39.5% (159 out of 403) in Group B were with donor sperm recruited by our unit. The clinical pregnancy rate per cycle of treatment in Group A was (86 out of 875) 9.8% for IUI and (27 out of 129) 20.9% for IVF/ICSI and in Group B (32/325) 9.8% and (28 out of 78) 35.9%, respectively. There was a sharp yearly fall in donor sperm treatments from 2004. Twenty-four men were screened in Group A, of which 18 (75.0%) were recruited for long-term storage and 12 (50%) were registered as donors with the HFEA when the sperm was used, whereas in Group B, 65 men were screened, 53 (82.0%) were recruited and 24 (36.92%) were registered as donors. Six (24.0%) men in Group A failed in screening because of poor semen analysis when compared with 9 (13.8%) men in Group B. The majority of post-recruitment dropouts were because of loss of follow-up or withdrawal of consent. More donors in Group A were white (92.0 versus 77.0%) and born in UK (92.0 versus 68.0%) when compared with those in Group B. Donors in Group B were more likely to be single (46.0 versus 4.0%) and to have informed their relevant partner of donation (71.0 versus 54.0%) when compared with those in Group A. 83.0% of donors in Group A were heterosexual when compared with 69.0% in Group B. The primary reason for donating in both groups of potential donors was 'wanting to help' (46.0% 'altruistic donors' in Group A versus 72.0% in Group B). Fewer donors in Group B (37%) had specific restrictions about the use of their sperm when compared with 46.0% in Group A. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: As this was a retrospective study, there is a chance for the introduction of bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We have shown that despite no active in-house recruitment procedures, we are managing to recruit more potential sperm donors after the change in UK legislation, and we are able to meet the demand for treatments with in-house recruited donor sperm that is a reassuring finding for donor sperm treatment services in the wider UK. FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No external funds were sought for this work. None of the authors have any competing interests to declare.

Bancos de cordón umbilical / Umbilical cord banks

No disponible