When duties collide: beneficence and veracity in the evaluation of living organ donors

A liver for a kidney: Ethics of trans-organ paired exchange

Living donation provides important access to organ transplantation, which is the optimal therapy for patients with end-stage liver or kidney failure. Paired exchanges have facilitated thousands of kidney transplants and enable transplantation when the donor and recipient are incompatible. However, frequently willing and otherwise healthy donors have contraindications to the donation of the organ that their recipient needs. Trans-organ paired exchanges would enable a donor associated with a kidney recipient to donate a lobe of liver and a donor associated with a liver recipient to donate a kidney. This article explores some of the ethical concerns that trans-organ exchange might encounter including unbalanced donor risks, the validity of informed consent, and effects on deceased organ donation.

Opting out: a single-centre pilot study assessing the reasons for and the psychosocial impact of withdrawing from living kidney donor evaluation

Understanding why individuals opt out of living donation is crucial to enhancing protections for all living donors and to identify modifiable barriers to donation. We developed an ethical approach to conducting research on individuals who opted out of living kidney donation and applied it in a small-scale qualitative study at one US transplant centre. The seven study participants (64% response rate) had varied reasons for opting out, the most prominent of which was concern about the financial burden from lost wages during the postoperative period. Several reported feeling alone during their decision-making process. Although no participants used an alibi, a centre-provided statement of non-eligibility to donate, all believed that centres should offer alibis to help preserve donor autonomy. Given the complexity of participants' decisions and the emotions they experienced before and after deciding not to donate, we suggest approaches for independent living donor advocates to support this population. This study demonstrates that research on individuals who opt out of donation is feasible and yields valuable insight into methods to improve the evaluation experience for potential living donors.

Opting out: confidentiality and availability of an 'alibi' for potential living kidney donors in the USA

Ethicists and guidelines have suggested that potential living kidney donors who withdraw from evaluation be offered an 'alibi.' We sought to determine what potential living kidney donors are told about their ability to opt out, alibi availability and postwithdrawal confidentiality. We reviewed 148 consent forms for living kidney donor evaluation from US transplant centres that performed >5 living kidney transplants in 2010-2011 (response rate 87%). We found that while 98% of centres used evaluation consent forms that indicated that the donor could withdraw, only 21% of these documents offered an alibi. Another 23% of centres' consent forms indicated that the transplant team would be willing to inform the intended recipient that an individual was not a potential donor. Relatively few consent documents explicitly addressed the confidentiality of the donor's health information (31%), candidacy status (18%), decision (24%) or reasons (23%) following withdrawal. To preserve potential donors' autonomy and relationships, we advocate that all transplant centres offer general alibis in their evaluation consent forms. We conclude by offering recommendations for evaluation consent discussions of opting out, alibis and postwithdrawal confidentiality.

Written informed consent for living liver donor evaluation: compliance with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Guidelines and alibi offers

We examined written informed consent forms for living liver donor evaluations to determine whether they incorporated elements required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and suggested by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). We contacted each of the 41 US centers that performed at least 1 living donor liver transplant in 2011; 37 centers reported active living donor evaluation programs. Twenty-six centers shared their consent form for living donor evaluation (response rate = 70%). Each document was double-coded for consent element content. We found that 57% of the centers included the 9 mandated CMS elements. Although the OPTN guidelines are non-binding, 78% of the centers used consent forms that addressed at least two-thirds of the elements recommended by OPTN. Only 17% of the centers provided written offers of an alibi to donors who withdrew from the evaluation. On the basis of our findings, we offer suggestions that may be relevant to ongoing revisions to the OPTN living liver donor consent policy and may help centers to improve the clarity of their written consent forms.

What the medical excuse teaches us about the potential living donor as patient

Since the inception of living donor kidney transplantation, physicians have expressed concern about the voluntariness of the donors and their ability to recuse themselves. The literature from the late 1960s and early 1970s reveals the practice of offering a false medical excuse, although more recent comments seem to focus more on a 'general statement of lack of suitability' or 'a blameless explanation'. Simmerling et al. argue that the provision of a medical excuse rests on deception, which is wrong on deontological grounds (that physicians should hold to a principle of veracity) and on consequential grounds (deception threatens to damage trust and the doctor-patient relationship and deception may have adverse impact on the donor's relationship with his family). In this paper I examine and reject these objections. I argue that a false medical excuse is morally unjustifiable, but the medical excuse understood as a 'general statement of lack of suitability' is morally permissible because it promotes donor autonomy (the donor's right to decide whether or not to donate), and protects and preserves the donor's rights to privacy and confidentiality (by affirming the donor as an independent patient).