Chapitre 9. Entre attachement aux principes du don du vivant et pragmatisme du législateur : l'extension du don croisé pour faciliter la greffe.

The new French bioethical legislation does not introduce any major changes in the area of organ transplantation. It does, however, facilitate the implementation of cross-over donation programs by increasing the number of living donor/recipient pairs eligible to participate in the program. By setting the number of pairs at six, the law is likely to allow this promising transplant program to take off. In order to mitigate the risk of a donor withdrawing and to facilitate the matching, the legislator has chosen to integrate a deceased donor organ to initiate the cross-donation program. This pragmatic choice reflects the hybrid regime of cross-over donation, since the legislator, while reaffirming the attachment to the principles of living donation, borrows from the logic of post-mortem donation.

Living Donor Ethics and Uterus Transplantation.

This article provides an in-depth ethical analysis of living donor uterus transplantation, incorporating clinical, psychological, and qualitative study data into the discussion. Although the concept of living organ donors as patients in their own right has not always been present in the field of transplantation, this conceptualization informs the framework for living donor ethics that we apply to living uterus donation. This framework takes root in the principles of research ethics, which include respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. It incorporates an analysis based on eight potential vulnerabilities of living donors: capacitational, juridic, deferential, social, medical, situational, allocational, and infrastructural. Finally, it recognizes that special relationships-such as that of the living donor advocate with the potential donor-require special responsibilities, including identifying vulnerabilities and engaging donors in a shared decision-making process. Directed and non-directed uterus donors require separate ethical analyses because their different relationships with recipients will influence the types of vulnerabilities, they are subject to as well as the potential benefits they may gain from donation.

Marginal parent donors-Process and ethics.

BACKGROUND: Pre-emptive kidney transplantation for end-stage kidney disease in children has many advantages and may lead to the consideration of marginal parent donors. METHODS: Using the example of the transplant of a kidney with medullary sponge disease from a parent to the child, we review the ethical framework for working up such donors. RESULTS: The four principles of health ethics include autonomy (the right of the patient to retain control over his/her own body); beneficence (healthcare providers must do all they can do to benefit the patient in each situation); non-maleficence ("first do no harm"-providers must consider whether other people or society could be harmed by a decision made, even if it is made for the benefit of an individual patient) and justice (there should be an element of fairness in all medical decisions). Highly motivated donors may derive significant psychological benefit from their donation and may thus be willing to incur more risk. The transplantation team and, ideally, an independent donor advocate team must make a judgment about the acceptability of the risk-benefit ratio for particular potential donors, who must also make their own assessment. The transplantation team and donor advocate team must be comfortable with the risk-benefit ratio before proceeding. CONCLUSIONS: An independent donor advocacy team that focuses on the donor needs is needed with sufficient multidisciplinary ethical, social, and psychological expertise. The decision to accept or reject the donor should be within the authority of the independent donor advocacy team and not the providers or the donor.

El derecho a ser donante de órganos es una responsabilidad de todos / The right to be an organ donor is the responsibility of us all

No disponible

Ways to Overcome Organ Shortage: Increasing Donor Pool by Accepting Suboptimal Kidney Donors.

Many factors affect organ donations worldwide, including religious factors, legislative decisions, economic factors, presence of organ procurement organizations, cultural issues, the presence of commercial transplant, and other unknown factors. The number of patients with end-stage renal disease has increased by 6% worldwide. Even with more transplant procedures, these numbers have not combated the dramatically increased number of patients on wait lists. With regard to potential living donors, around 50% are either blood group or HLA incompatible with the recipient, which then requires patient desensitization or paired kidney donation or a combination of both. Survival rates of kidney donors and the general population are almost the same 35 to 40 years after donation. Although the renal consequences of diabetes after kidney donation are almost the same as that shown in the general population, other risk factors should be considered, such as hypertension, proteinuria, and low glomerular filtration rate, before donation. It is so far unknown whether donors with impaired glucose tolerance can safely donate. With diabetes, what was considered normal blood sugar in 1960 to 1990 is now considered frank diabetes. What was considered normal blood pressure is now considered hypertension. Because individuals with these parameters were accepted as organ donors in the past and have been shown to maintain good health, it is worth considering the safe use of organs from donors with early diabetes and hypertension. Whereas young donors may have not reached the age at which hypertension, diabetes, and other kidney diseases develop, older donors have the lowest likelihood of developing end-stage renal disease after donation. As a general approach, young donors can be accepted if they have high glomerular filtration rate, but young donors from certain ethnic minorities and/or extensive family history of chronic kidney disease and those less than 18 years old should not be considered.

Will you give my kidney back? Organ restitution in living-related kidney transplantation: ethical analyses.

In this article, we perform a thought experiment about living donor kidney transplantation. If a living kidney donor becomes in need of renal replacement treatment due to dysfunction of the remaining kidney after donation, can the donor ask the recipient to give back the kidney that had been donated? We call this problem organ restitution and discussed it from the ethical viewpoint. Living organ transplantation is a kind of 'designated donation' and subsequently has a contract-like character. First, assuming a case in which original donor (A) wishes the return of the organ which had been transplanted into B, and the original recipient (B) agrees, organ restitution will be permissible based on contract-like agreement. However, careful and detailed consideration is necessary to determine whether this leaves no room to question the authenticity of B's consent. Second, if B offers to give back the organ to A, then B's act is a supererogatory act, and is praiseworthy and meritorious. Such an offer is a matter of virtue, not obligation. Third, if A wishes B to return the organ, but B does not wish/allow this to happen, it is likely difficult to justify returning the organ to A by violating B's right to bodily integrity. But B's refusal to return the donated organ cannot be deemed praiseworthy, because B forgets the great kindness once received from A. Rather than calling this an obligation, we encourage B to consider such virtuous conduct.

Living donor program crisis management plans: Current landscape and talking point recommendations.

Although minimized by expert evaluation, operative technique, and postoperative care, the extremely low risk of perioperative mortality following living kidney or liver donation will never be eliminated. Furthermore, anticipation of poor donor outcome may simultaneously be a source of anxiety for physicians and programs and also be a circumstance for which they are unprepared. We conducted a national survey of US transplant surgeons to understand experiences with and systemic preparedness for the event of a living donor death. Respondents represented 87 unique transplant programs (71 kidney and 16 liver donor programs). Perioperative deaths were rare, as expected. Although most respondents (N = 57, 64% of total respondents; 88% of liver programs) reported being moderately to extremely concerned about a future living donor death at their institution, only 30 (33% of total program respondents) had a written plan available in the case of such an event; 63% of programs would find guidance and recommendations useful. To help address this gap, the American Society of Transplantation Live Donor Community of Practice (AST LDCOP) developed Living Donor Crisis Management Plan Talking Points suitable to guide crisis plan development at transplant programs.

Vaginal delivery in the 30+4 weeks of pregnancy and organ donation after brain death in early pregnancy.

A 28-year-old woman suffered a traffic accident resulting in severe head injuries with deleterious prognosis. Diagnostics further revealed a hitherto unknown pregnancy, at suspected week 9. Based on the patient's wish to donate organs, brain death protocol confirmed irreversible loss of brain function. Yet, vital pregnancy rendered organ transplantation impossible. Multiple ethical and legal issues arose, from invalidation of established legal care after brain death to the delivery of a healthy child after trauma and long-term critical care. After medicolegal and ethical counselling, pregnancy was sustained, and the goal of organ donation postponed. Critical care focused on foetal homeostasis. At 30+4 weeks, a viable girl was born via assisted vaginal delivery. Postpartal organ donation resulted in heart, kidney and pancreas transplantation. The case emphasises the medical, legal and ethical challenges to combine two apparently diametrical goals: the successful full-term pregnancy and the fulfilment of a patient's wish to donate organs.

Ethical and policy issues raised by uterus transplants.

INTRODUCTION: In 2014, Brännström and colleagues reported the first human live birth following uterine transplantation (UTx). Research into this treatment for absolute uterine factor infertility has since grown with clinical trials currently taking place across centers in at least thirteen countries worldwide. SOURCES OF DATA: This review summarizes and critiques the academic literature on ethical and policy issues raised by UTx. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: There is general agreement on the importance of risk reduction and, in principle, to the sharing and maintenance of patient data on an international registry. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: There are numerous areas of controversy ranging from whether it is ethically justified to carry out uterus transplants at all (considering the associated health risks) to how deceased donor organs for transplant should be allocated. This review focuses on three key issues: the choice between deceased and living donors, ensuring valid consent to the procedure and access to treatment. GROWING POINTS: UTx is presently a novel and rare procedure but is likely to become more commonplace in the foreseeable future, given the large number of surgical teams working on it worldwide. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Uterus transplantation requires us to re-examine fundamental questions about the ethical and social value of gestation. If eventually extended to transgender women or even to men, it may also require us to reconceptualize what it is to be a 'father' or to be a 'mother', and the definition of these terms in law.

An ethical comparison of living kidney donation and surrogacy: understanding the relational dimension.

BACKGROUND: The bioethical debates concerning living donation and surrogacy revolve around similar ethical questions and moral concepts. Nevertheless, the ethical discourses in both fields grew largely isolated from each other. METHODS: Based on a review of ethical, sociological and anthropological research this paper aims to link the ethical discourses on living kidney donation and surrogacy by providing a comparative analysis of the two practices' relational dimension with regard to three aspects, i.e. the normative role of relational dynamics, social norms and gender roles, and reciprocity. Based on this analysis, we derive conclusions for the framing of living organ donation and surrogacy in ethical theory and practice. RESULTS: First, our analysis emphasizes the relevance of acknowledging the complex relational implications of living kidney donation and surrogacy. Underestimating this relational dimension may not only lead to individual crises but endanger existing as well as newly emerging familial relationships. Second, we point out differences in the normative assessment of social norms and gender roles in the ethical debates about living kidney donation and surrogacy. In particular, we show how different evaluations of altruism affect the understanding of autonomy in both contexts. In addition, we sensitize for biased perceptions of gender roles. Finally, we argue that challenges resulting from unresolved reciprocity are an issue in living kidney donation and surrogacy independent of whether the exchange of body parts or bodily services is framed as a gift or commercial exchange. By pointing out the limits of financial compensation, we stress the relevance of non-material, relational rewards as potential remedy.

International Travel for Living Donor Kidney Donation: A Proposal for Focused Screening of Vulnerable Groups.

As the gap between organ donors and patients on the recipient waiting list grows, residents of the United States who are in need of kidney transplantation occasionally contract with living donors from outside the United States. Those donors then travel to the United States to undergo living donor kidney donation at US transplant centers. This practice is not limited to the United States and occurs with some regularity around the world. However, there is very little written about this practice from the perspective of the US transplant system, and there is little in the way of guidance (either legal or ethical) to assist centers that accommodate it in distinguishing between ethically permissible travel for transplant and what could potentially be human trafficking for organ removal. This article will present an ethical analysis of travel for organ donation with particular attention to lessons that can be drawn from living donor donation in other countries. This inquiry is particularly germane because Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network has promulgated guidelines with respect to obligations owed to living donors, but those guidelines appear to assume that the donor is a US resident. The critical question then is whether or to what extent those guidelines are applicable to the instant scenario in which the living donor is a nonresident. In addition, this article addresses several critical ethical concerns implicated by the often vulnerable populations from which donors are drawn. Finally, this article proposes that focused inquiry by transplant centers is necessary when donors are nonresidents.

Lethal Organ Donation: Would the Doctor Intend the Donor's Death?

Lethal organ donation is a hypothetical procedure in which vital organs are removed from living donors, resulting in their death. An important objection to lethal organ donation is that it would infringe the prohibition on doctors intentionally causing the death of patients. I present a series of arguments intended to undermine this objection. In a case of lethal organ donation, the donor's death is merely foreseen, and not intended.

Deceased Donor-initiated Chains: First Report of a Successful Deliberate Case and Its Ethical Implications.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that deceased donor kidneys could be used to initiate chains of living donor kidney paired donation, but the potential gains of this practice need to be quantified and the ethical implications must be addressed before it can be implemented. METHODS: The gain of implementing deceased donor-initiated chains was measured with an algorithm, using retrospective data on the pool of incompatible donor/recipient pairs, at a single center. The allocation rules for chain-ending kidneys and the characteristics and quality of the chain-initiating kidney are described. RESULTS: The benefit quantification process showed that, with a pool of 69 kidneys from deceased donors and 16 pairs enrolled in the kidney paired donation program, it was possible to transplant 8 of 16 recipients (50%) over a period of 3 years. After obtaining the approval of the Veneto Regional Authority's Bioethical Committee and the revision of the Italian National Transplant Center's allocation policies, the first successful case was completed. For the recipient (male, aged 53 y), who entered the program for a chain-initiating kidney with a Kidney Donor Risk Index of 0.61 and a Kidney Donor Profile Index of 3%, the waiting time was 4 days. His willing donor (female, aged 53 y) with a Living Kidney Donor Profile Index of 2, donated 2 days later to a chain-ending recipient (male, aged 47 y) who had been on dialysis for 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of a successfully completed, deliberate deceased donor-initiated chain, which was made possible after a thorough assessment of the ethical issues and the impact of allocation policies. This article includes a preliminary efficacy assessment and describes the development of a dedicated algorithm.

APOL1 Genetic Testing in Living Kidney Transplant Donors.

The presence of 2 apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) risk variants is associated with increased risk for chronic kidney disease and end-stage kidney disease. Inferior allograft outcomes following transplantation with kidneys from donors with 2 risk variants have also been reported. These data, coupled with anecdotal case reports and a recent cohort study of living donors, raise important questions about the potential increased kidney disease risk for living donors with APOL1 risk variants and the need for testing as part of the standard living donor evaluation process. We identify a series of questions that are central to the development of clinical policy regarding APOL1 testing of potential living kidney donors given the current uncertainty over the clinical implications of having 2 risk variants. We explore the ethical challenges that arise when determining when and to whom APOL1 testing should be offered, what potential donors should be told about APOL1 testing, how test results should be used to determine suitability for donation, if and when recipients should have access to results, and how clinical policy regarding APOL1 testing should be established.

Bi-organ paired exchange-Sentinel case of a liver-kidney swap.

Organ transplantation is the optimal treatment for patients with end stage liver disease and end stage renal disease. However, due to the imbalance in the demand and supply of deceased organs, most transplant centers worldwide have consciously pursued a strategy for living donation. Paired exchanges were introduced as a means to bypass various biologic incompatibilities (blood- and tissue-typing), while expanding the living donor pool. This shift in paradigm has introduced new ethical concerns that have hitherto been unaddressed, especially with nondirected, altruistic living donors. So far, transplant communities have focused efforts on separate liver- and kidney-paired exchanges, whereas the concept of a transorgan paired exchange has been theorized and could potentially facilitate a greater number of transplants. We describe the performance of the first successful liver-kidney swap.

Living Donation by Individuals with Life-Limiting Conditions.

The traditional living donor was very healthy. However, as the supply-demand gap continues to expand, transplant programs have become more accepting of less healthy donors. This paper focuses on the other extreme, asking whether and when individuals who have life-limiting conditions (LLC) should be considered for living organ donation. We discuss ethical issues raised by 1) donation by individuals with progressive severe debilitating disease for whom there is no ameliorative therapy; and 2) donation by individuals who are imminently dying or would die by the donation process itself.