Fair treatment of alcoholic patients in the context of liver transplantation

'Personal Health Surveillance': The Use of mHealth in Healthcare Responsibilisation

There is an ongoing increase in the use of mobile health (mHealth) technologies that patients can use to monitor health-related outcomes and behaviours. While the dominant narrative around mHealth focuses on patient empowerment, there is potential for mHealth to fit into a growing push for patients to take personal responsibility for their health. I call the first of these uses 'medical monitoring', and the second 'personal health surveillance'. After outlining two problems which the use of mHealth might seem to enable us to overcome-fairness of burdens and reliance on self-reporting-I note that these problems would only really be solved by unacceptably comprehensive forms of personal health surveillance which applies to all of us at all times. A more plausible model is to use personal health surveillance as a last resort for patients who would otherwise independently qualify for responsibility-based penalties. However, I note that there are still a number of ethical and practical problems that such a policy would need to overcome. The prospects of mHealth enabling a fair, genuinely cost-saving policy of patient responsibility are slim.

Personal responsibility within health policy: unethical and ineffective

This paper argues against incorporating assessments of individual responsibility into healthcare policies by expanding an existing argument and offering a rebuttal to an argument in favour of such policies. First, it is argued that what primarily underlies discussions surrounding personal responsibility and healthcare is not causal responsibility, moral responsibility or culpability, as one might expect, but biases towards particular highly stigmatised behaviours. A challenge is posed for proponents of taking personal responsibility into account within health policy to either expand the debate to also include socially accepted behaviours or to provide an alternative explanation of the narrowly focused discussion. Second, a critical response is offered to arguments that claim that policies based on personal responsibility would lead to several positive outcomes including healthy behaviour change, better health outcomes and decreases in healthcare spending. It is argued that using individual responsibility as a basis for resource allocation in healthcare is unlikely to motivate positive behaviour changes, and is likely to increase inequality which may lead to worse health outcomes overall. Finally, the case of West Virginia's Medicaid reform is examined, which raises a worry that policies focused on personal responsibility have the potential to lead to increases in medical spending overall.

Addiction Medicine in Organ Transplantation

Allocation of organs for transplant has created medical, ethical, and economic concerns at a time when availability of all organs is extremely limited. Although transplantation is the final treatment for many diseases, it is not available to everyone. Patients' use of alcohol and other drugs has become a controversial and debated issue in the transplant community. Compliance is important for all transplant recipients, but it becomes even more important in patients whose drug or alcohol use has caused their organ disease. The issue of addiction appears to be more critical with transplant patients because of the potential for noncompliance, which may lead to graft loss. Local, regional, and national regulations have also affected the allocation of organs. At The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, a chemical dependency transplant team was formed in response to criteria of the Ohio Solid Organ Transplantation Consortium for transplant patients with addictive disorders. The assessment, treatment, and monitoring of these patients requires specific expertise; a prominent role on transplant teams for specialists in addiction has resulted. The purpose of this article is to describe the responsibilities of the chemical dependency transplant team, the scope of the referral and evaluation process, and the team's appropriate roles with patients and transplant professionals.

Ethical Considerations in Organ Donation and Transplantation

Organ transplantation continues to be an excellent therapeutic option for patients with end-stage organ disease. Due to advances made in immunosuppression, surgical techniques, and critical care management, graft and patient survival rates continue to improve. Although advances in technology have dramatically changed in the field of organ transplantation over the last several decades and complicated ethical decision-making, the fundamental ethical principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice have not. Organ transplantation still remains a problem of supply and demand and challenges transplant professionals to meet society's push to find new organ donor sources.

Drinking in the last chance saloon: luck egalitarianism, alcohol consumption, and the organ transplant waiting list

The scarcity of livers available for transplants forces tough choices upon us. Lives for those not receiving a transplant are likely to be short. One large group of potential recipients needs a new liver because of alcohol consumption, while others suffer for reasons unrelated to their own behaviour. Should the former group receive lower priority when scarce livers are allocated? This discussion connects with one of the most pertinent issues in contemporary political philosophy; the role of personal responsibility in distributive justice. One prominent theory of distributive justice, luck egalitarianism, assesses distributions as just if, and only if, people's relative positions reflect their exercises of responsibility. There is a principled luck egalitarian case for giving lower priority to those who are responsible for their need. Compared to the existing literature favouring such differentiation, luck egalitarianism provides a clearer rationale of fairness, acknowledges the need for individual assessments of responsibility, and requires initiatives both inside and outside of the allocation systems aimed at mitigating the influence from social circumstances. Furthermore, the concrete policies that luck egalitarians can recommend are neither too harsh on those who make imprudent choices nor excessively intrusive towards those whose exercises of responsibility are assessed.

Addiction medicine in organ tansplantation

Allocation of organs for transplant has created medical, ethical, and economic concerns at a time when availability of all organs is extremely limited. Although transplantation is the final treatment for many diseases, it is not available to everyone. Patients' use of alcohol and other drugs has become a controversial and debated issue in the transplant community. Compliance is important for all transplant recipients, but it becomes even more important in patients whose drug or alcohol use has caused their organ disease. The issue of addiction appears to be more critical with transplant patients because of the potential for noncompliance, which may lead to graft loss. Local, regional, and national regulations have also affected the allocation of organs. At The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, a chemical dependency transplant team was formed in response to criteria of the Ohio Solid Organ Transplantation Consortium for transplant patients with addictive disorders. The assessment, treatment, and monitoring of these patients requires specific expertise; a prominent role on transplant teams for specialists in addiction has resulted. The purpose of this article is to describe the responsibilities of the chemical dependency transplant team, the scope of the referral and evaluation process, and the team's appropriate roles with patients and transplant professionals.