Unrelated living organ donation: ULTRA needs to go

Can we turn down autonomous wishes to donate anonymously?

Imagine a Samaritan living kidney donor, who some time ago has anonymously donated one of his kidneys to a patient on top of the waiting list. He now contacts the transplantation centre once again, to donate part of his liver. The Centre, startled by this idea, refers him to the regular screening procedure for all Samaritan donations. It turns out that his wish is well-informed, voluntarily made and that he is competent to decide. We acknowledge that a donor's wish should not be followed in all cases, even though this wish is a clear expression of his own free will. However, a refusal must be based on sound moral reasons and it is less clear what reasons these might be. We outline the most common arguments for refusal, assess these arguments in terms of strengths and weaknesses, and show which arguments, if any at all, are most promising. We conclude, firstly, that we should only assess risks (which include motivations), not judge relationships, and secondly, that it is not a transplant centre's mission to carry out a donor's life project.

Living unrelated-commercial-kidney transplantation: when there is no chance to survive

Transplantation is the best treatment of end-stage renal disease (ESRD); however, organ shortage is a reality. Deceased donor organ donation is inadequate; hence, the number of patients on the waiting lists is increasing progressively. Since many ESRD patients do not have living genetically related donors, living unrelated transplantation is considered. These transplantations offer excellent graft and patient survival rates if practiced in conventional situations, while the results are not so favorable or even poor in unconventional transplantations, which mostly take place in developing countries. Ethical aspects of living unrelated transplantation are more complicated than the medical side due to concern of commercialization. Making payment to the donors has been considered strictly as nonethical by many authors, while some others suggest reopening previous debates for kidney sales. The latter claim that if exploitation of donors is avoided, the reward (or payment) to the donor can be morally justified. Apart from these controversies, it is uniformly accepted that commercial transplantation is certainly unethical when brokers are involved or the aim is just profit for transplant physicians, because the main reason in favor of organ sales is improving the quality of life of the patients and the donors, not the brokers or the physicians. All these theoretical ethical arguments in the Western countries turn out to become vital concerns in developing countries, because transplantation is the cheapest renal replacement therapy. Recently, it has been suggested that organ shortage problems can partly be solved by establishing controlled donor compensation programs in these countries, which may also prevent exploitation of the donors. However, it is impossible to suggest a uniform solution for all countries because of deep differences in economical status as well as social and cultural values. Thus, every country should build its own ethical standards for commercial transplantation.

Increasing the pool of transplantable kidneys through unrelated living donors and living donor paired exchanges

Renal transplantation is the best therapy for eligible patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Unfortunately the ability to perform this procedure is limited by a severe shortage of transplantable kidneys. One of the most successful approaches to this serious problem has been to expand the pool of living donors. This has been accomplished primarily by lifting restrictions on the use of genetically unrelated volunteers. As a result, acceptable living kidney donors now include individuals who are related to their recipients only through emotional bonds (e.g., spouses) and, at some centers, even people who are not related to their recipients at all. Living donor paired kidney exchanges provide a novel means for increasing further the number of kidneys available for transplantation. Each of these approaches will be reviewed.

Directed altruistic living organ donation: partial but not unfair

Arguments against directed altruistic living organ donations are too weak to justify a ban. Potential donors who want to specify the non-related person or group of persons to receive their donated kidney should be accepted. The arguments against, based on considerations of motivation, fairness and (non-)anonymity (e.g. those recently cited by an advisory report of the Dutch Health Council), are presented and discussed, as well as the Dutch Government's response. Whereas the Government argues that individuals have authority with regard to the allocation of their organs, partial considerations have not been sufficiently explored. In addition, it is argued that partial relationships govern human life, are significant and should be valued highly. These relationships are at the core of accepted living kidney donation between relatives (family members, partners, friends). Respecting the particular act of living donation goes beyond respect for autonomy; it touches upon our personal and social identity. Donation, e.g. of a kidney, is not undertaken strictly for the benefit of the recipient, but also to meet the moral standards we wish to set for ourselves. This consideration, rooted in a view of moral identity, provides the basis for many forms of directed donation that are both partial and justified. If the importance of this is not recognized, social policies can be neither adequate nor effective.