Living organ procurement from the mentally incompetent: the need for more appropriate guidelines

Donor Autonomy and Self-Sacrifice in Living Organ Donation: An Ethical Legal and Psychological Aspects of Transplantation (ELPAT) View

Clinical teams understandably wish to minimise risks to living kidney donors undergoing surgery, but are often faced with uncertainty about the extent of risk, or donors who wish to proceed despite those risks. Here we explore how these difficult decisions may be approached and consider the conflicts between autonomy and paternalism, the place of self-sacrifice and consideration of risks and benefits. Donor autonomy should be considered as in the context of the depth and strength of feeling, understanding risk and competing influences. Discussion of risks could be improved by using absolute risk, supra-regional MDMs and including the risks to the clinical team as well as the donor. The psychological effects on the donor of poor outcomes for the untransplanted recipient should also be taken into account. There is a lack of detailed data on the risks to the donor who has significant co-morbidities.

The Ethics of Organ Donation in Patients Who Lack the Capacity for Decision Making

Free and informed consent is the legal and ethical basis for organ donation from living donors, and is a requirement for making an autonomous health decision. In clinical practice, health-care providers are required to respect four bioethical principles: respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice (Beauchamp & Childress, 2012), with the best interest of their patients in mind. Yet there are bioethical concerns behind organ procurement from living donors who have never attained capacity, do not yet have the capacity, or have permanently lost the capacity for decision making. A consensus statement by the Live Organ Donor Consensus Group (Abecassis et al., 2000) protects these donors’ well-being and autonomy, but there still is a need to raise ethical awareness about the decision-making process regarding vulnerable potential donors. Health-care providers who are staff members in transplant clinics should be aware of the current consensus statement, commit to essential bioethical principles surrounding organ donation, and advocate for vulnerable living donors.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.

'Doing good by proxy': human-animal kinship and the 'donation' of canine blood

This article demonstrates the relevance of animals to medical sociology by arguing that pet owners' accounts of veterinary decision-making can highlight key sociological themes which are important to both human and animal health. Based on semi-structured interviews, the article argues that interspecies 'kinship' allows for the extension of sociological claims regarding altruism, self-interest and mutuality from human blood donation to companion animal blood 'donation'. Furthermore, this study extends sociological understanding of the human-animal bond by showing how the dog's status as kin meant they were expected to donate blood, and that the act of donation itself represents an important opportunity for family 'display'. However, owners who do not or cannot donate blood themselves describe pet blood donation as an opportunity to lessen associated feelings of guilt or obligation through 'doing good by proxy'. These findings raise critical sociological and ethical questions concerning the risks and benefits of donation, and for how we understand third-party decision making. Finally, the article argues for the close entanglement of human and animal health, and concludes that sociologists of health and medicine should explore the radical possibility that decision-making in healthcare more generally might be influenced by experiences at the veterinary clinic, and vice versa. (A Virtual Abstract of this paper can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_979cmCmR9rLrKuD7z0ycA).