1
|
Deans Z, Moorlock G, Trimble M. The medical licensing assessment will fall short of determining whether a UK medical graduate behaves ethically. Br J Hosp Med (Lond) 2024; 85:1-7. [PMID: 38300672 DOI: 10.12968/hmed.2023.0370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/02/2024]
Abstract
UK medical graduates will soon need to pass the medical licensing assessment, which assesses skills and knowledge in ethics using multiple choice questions (eg single best answer questions) and objective structured clinical examination. However, educational leaders have recognised that these methods lack the sophistication needed to accurately assess medical ethics. The reasons are two-fold. First, there may be a knowledge and practice gap in medical schools when it comes to preparing students for the assessment. To this end, this article shares peer advice about how best to use objective structured clinical examinations and single best answer questions for assessing medical ethics to help prepare students for the medical licensing assessment. Second, the design of the assessment is unlikely to adequately measure graduates' ethical values and behaviour in real world scenarios. Further work is needed to design assessments that are sophisticated enough to examine candidates' ethical reasoning and their actual behaviour.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zuzana Deans
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK
| | - Greg Moorlock
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Michael Trimble
- Centre for Medical Education, Queen's University, Belfast, UK
- Acute Medicine Unit, Unscheduled Care and Older People's Acute Services Division, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Trimble M, Deans Z, Moorlock G. Assessment of undergraduate medical students' understanding and application of ethics: must do better. Br J Hosp Med (Lond) 2024; 85:1-2. [PMID: 38300675 DOI: 10.12968/hmed.2023.0371] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/02/2024]
Abstract
Current methods used to assess newly qualified doctors have limited ability to assess reasoning about complex issues. This editorial looks at the points this raises in relation to the new medical licensing assessment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Trimble
- Centre for Medical Education, Queen's University, Belfast, UK
| | - Zuzana Deans
- Centre for Ethics in Medicine, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Greg Moorlock
- Department of Law and Ethics, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Moorlock G, Asgari E, Callaghan C, Draper H, Dupont P, Gilbert P, Nasralla D, Veitch P, Watson C, O'Neill S. The British Transplantation Society guidelines on ethics, law and consent in relation to deceased donors after circulatory death. Transplant Rev (Orlando) 2024; 38:100803. [PMID: 37919138 DOI: 10.1016/j.trre.2023.100803] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2023] [Accepted: 10/26/2023] [Indexed: 11/04/2023]
Abstract
The British Transplantation Society (BTS) 'Guideline on transplantation from deceased donors after circulatory death' has recently been updated and this manuscript summarises the relevant recommendations from chapters specifically related to law, ethics, donor consent and informing the recipient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Patty Gilbert
- Northern Ireland Kidney Patients' Association, Belfast, UK
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Moorlock G, Draper H. Proposal to support making decisions about the organ donation process. J Med Ethics 2023; 49:434-438. [PMID: 35953297 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2022-108323] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2022] [Accepted: 08/07/2022] [Indexed: 05/24/2023]
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a novel approach to permit members of the public opportunity to record more nuanced wishes in relation to organ donation. Recent developments in organ donation and procurement have made the associated processes potentially more multistaged and complex than ever. At the same time, opt-out legislation has led to a more simplistic recording of wishes than ever. We argue that in order to be confident that a patient would really wish to go ahead with the various interventions and procedures that now accompany organ donation, more nuanced information than a simple 'yes' or 'no' may be required. This is of particular importance for donation after circulatory death, where some interventions to facilitate donation occur when the patient is still alive. We propose the implementation of an online form to allow people to record more nuanced wishes in relation to donation, including an indication of competing wishes and how these should be weighed into decision-making. We argue that this approach will promote autonomous decision-making for the public, potentially reduce difficulties that family members encounter at the time of organ donation, and should make medical staff more confident that they are truly acting according to the wishes and best interests of their patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Greg Moorlock
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Heather Draper
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Courtney AE, Moorlock G, Van Assche K, Burnapp L, Mamode N, Lennerling A, Dor FJMF. Living Donor Kidney Transplantation in Older Individuals: An Ethical Legal and Psychological Aspects of Transplantation (ELPAT) View. Transpl Int 2023; 36:11139. [PMID: 37152615 PMCID: PMC10161899 DOI: 10.3389/ti.2023.11139] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2022] [Accepted: 04/12/2023] [Indexed: 05/09/2023]
Abstract
Living donor transplantation is the optimal treatment for suitable patients with end-stage kidney disease. There are particular advantages for older individuals in terms of elective surgery, timely transplantation, and early graft function. Yet, despite the superiority of living donor transplantation especially for this cohort, older patients are significantly less likely to access this treatment modality than younger age groups. However, given the changing population demographic in recent decades, there are increasing numbers of older but otherwise healthy individuals with kidney disease who could benefit from living donor transplantation. The complex reasons for this inequity of access are explored, including conscious and unconscious age-related bias by healthcare professionals, concerns relating to older living donors, ethical anxieties related to younger adults donating to aging patients, unwillingness of potential older recipients to consider living donation, and the relevant legislation. There is a legal and moral duty to consider the inequity of access to living donor transplantation, recognising both the potential disparity between chronological and physiological age in older patients, and benefits of this treatment for individuals as well as society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aisling E. Courtney
- Regional Nephrology and Transplant Unit, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom
- *Correspondence: Aisling E. Courtney,
| | - Greg Moorlock
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
| | - Kristof Van Assche
- Research Group Personal Rights and Property Rights, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Lisa Burnapp
- NHS Blood and Transplant, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Nizam Mamode
- Department of Surgery, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Annette Lennerling
- The Transplant Centre, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Institute of Health and Care Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Frank J. M. F. Dor
- Imperial College Renal and Transplant Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Mamode N, Van Assche K, Burnapp L, Courtney A, van Dellen D, Houthoff M, Maple H, Moorlock G, Dor FJMF, Lennerling A. Donor Autonomy and Self-Sacrifice in Living Organ Donation: An Ethical Legal and Psychological Aspects of Transplantation (ELPAT) View. Transpl Int 2022; 35:10131. [PMID: 35387400 PMCID: PMC8979023 DOI: 10.3389/ti.2022.10131] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2021] [Accepted: 02/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nizam Mamode
- Department of Transplantation, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- *Correspondence: Nizam Mamode,
| | - Kristof Van Assche
- Research Group Personal Rights and Property Rights, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Lisa Burnapp
- Department of Transplantation, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Aisling Courtney
- Regional Nephrology and Transplant Unit, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - David van Dellen
- Department of Renal and Pancreas Transplantation, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Mireille Houthoff
- Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Hannah Maple
- Department of Transplantation, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Greg Moorlock
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
| | - Frank J. M. F. Dor
- Imperial College Renal and Transplant Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
| | - Annette Lennerling
- The Transplant Centre, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Institute of Health and Care Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Moorlock G. Premature presumptions about presumed consent: why Parsons' comparison is mistaken. J Law Biosci 2021; 8:lsab024. [PMID: 34377498 PMCID: PMC8337083 DOI: 10.1093/jlb/lsab024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2021] [Revised: 03/15/2021] [Accepted: 06/02/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
|
8
|
van Dellen D, Burnapp L, Citterio F, Mamode N, Moorlock G, van Assche K, Zuidema WC, Lennerling A, Dor FJMF. Pre-emptive live donor kidney transplantation-moving barriers to opportunities: An ethical, legal and psychological aspects of organ transplantation view. World J Transplant 2021; 11:88-98. [PMID: 33954087 PMCID: PMC8058646 DOI: 10.5500/wjt.v11.i4.88] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2020] [Revised: 01/30/2021] [Accepted: 03/12/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the optimal treatment modality for end stage renal disease (ESRD), enhancing patient and graft survival. Pre-emptive LDKT, prior to requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT), provides further advantages, due to uraemia and dialysis avoidance. There are a number of potential barriers and opportunities to promoting pre-emptive LDKT. Significant infrastructure is needed to deliver robust programmes, which varies based on socio-economic standards. National frameworks can impact on national prioritisation of pre-emptive LDKT and supporting education programmes. Focus on other programme’s components, including deceased kidney transplantation and RRT, can also hamper uptake. LDKT programmes are designed to provide maximal benefit to the recipient, which is specifically true for pre-emptive transplantation. Health care providers need to be educated to maximize early LDKT referral. Equitable access for varying population groups, without socio-economic bias, also requires prioritisation. Cultural barriers, including religious influence, also need consideration in developing successful outcomes. In addition, the benefit of pre-emptive LDKT needs to be emphasised, and opportunities provided to potential donors, to ensure timely and safe work-up processes. Recipient education and preparation for pre-emptive LDKT needs to ensure increased uptake. Awareness of the benefits of pre-emptive transplantation require prioritisation for this population group. We recommend an approach where patients approaching ESRD are referred early to pre-transplant clinics facilitating early discussion regarding pre-emptive LDKT and potential donors for LDKT are prioritized for work-up to ensure success. Education regarding pre-emptive LDKT should be the norm for patients approaching ESRD, appropriate for the patient’s cultural needs and physical status. Pre-emptive transplantation maximize benefit to potential recipients, with the potential to occur within successful service delivery. To fully embrace preemptive transplantation as the norm, investment in infrastructure, increased awareness, and donor and recipient support is required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David van Dellen
- Department of Renal and Pancreas Transplantation, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WL, United Kingdom
- Department of Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
| | - Lisa Burnapp
- Department of Transplantation, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London SE1 9RT, United Kingdom
| | - Franco Citterio
- Department of Surgery, Renal Transplantation, Catholic University, Rome 00153, Italy
| | - Nizam Mamode
- Department of Transplantation, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London SE1 9RT, United Kingdom
| | - Greg Moorlock
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom
| | - Kristof van Assche
- Res Grp Personal Rights & Property Rights, University of Antwerp, Antwerp 2000, Belgium
| | - Willij C Zuidema
- Departments of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam CE 1015, Netherlands
| | - Annette Lennerling
- The Transplant Centre, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg S-413 45, Sweden
- Institute of Health and Care Sciences, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg S-405 30, Sweden
| | - Frank JMF Dor
- Imperial College Renal and Transplant Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, London W2 1NY, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Ambagtsheer F, Haase-Kromwijk B, Dor FJMF, Moorlock G, Citterio F, Berney T, Massey EK. Global Kidney Exchange: opportunity or exploitation? An ELPAT/ESOT appraisal. Transpl Int 2020; 33:989-998. [PMID: 32349176 PMCID: PMC7540591 DOI: 10.1111/tri.13630] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2020] [Revised: 03/11/2020] [Accepted: 04/24/2020] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
This paper addresses ethical, legal, and psychosocial aspects of Global Kidney Exchange (GKE). Concerns have been raised that GKE violates the nonpayment principle, exploits donors in low- and middle-income countries, and detracts from the aim of self-sufficiency. We review the arguments for and against GKE. We argue that while some concerns about GKE are justified based on the available evidence, others are speculative and do not apply exclusively to GKE but to living donation more generally. We posit that concerns can be mitigated by implementing safeguards, by developing minimum quality criteria and by establishing an international committee that independently monitors and evaluates GKE's procedures and outcomes. Several questions remain however that warrant further clarification. What are the experiences and views of recipients and donors participating in GKE? Who manages the escrow funds that have been put in place for donor and recipients? What procedures and safeguards have been put in place to prevent corruption of these funds? What are the inclusion criteria for participating GKE centers? GKE provides opportunity to promote access to donation and transplantation but can only be conducted with the appropriate safeguards. Patients' and donors' voices are missing in this debate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Frederike Ambagtsheer
- Department of Internal Medicine, Nephrology & Transplantation, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Frank J M F Dor
- Imperial College Renal and Transplant Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK.,Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK
| | - Greg Moorlock
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Franco Citterio
- Renal Transplantation Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario, A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy
| | - Thierry Berney
- Division of Transplantation, University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Emma K Massey
- Department of Internal Medicine, Nephrology & Transplantation, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Affiliation(s)
| | - Greg Moorlock
- Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, Warwick, U.K
| | - Wendy Rogers
- Philosophy Department, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
| | - Jackie Leach Scully
- Disability Innovation Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Moorlock G. Do junior academic bioethicists have an obligation to be activists? Bioethics 2019; 33:922-930. [PMID: 31463984 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12649] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2018] [Revised: 05/02/2019] [Accepted: 06/25/2019] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Activism and bioethics have enjoyed a somewhat strained relationship. In this paper, I consider activism specifically from the perspective of junior academics. I will argue that although there may be a prima facie duty for bioethicists to be activists, countervailing considerations for junior academics may mean that they, in particular, should refrain from undertaking activist activities. I will argue this on the basis of two key claims. First, I argue that activism may come at a potential cost to the academics who undertake it, and that these costs are potentially of greatest detriment to junior academics undertaking activism. Second, I argue that junior academics are likely to be less effective activists than established academics. Moreover, undertaking activism as a junior academic may prevent one from becoming an effective activist later. Finally, I will discuss the implications of this argument for activist commitments later in one's career.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Greg Moorlock
- Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, Warwick, Warwickshire, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Moorlock G, Draper H. Empathy, social media, and directed altruistic living organ donation. Bioethics 2018; 32:289-297. [PMID: 29542172 PMCID: PMC6001484 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12438] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2016] [Revised: 10/08/2017] [Accepted: 11/27/2017] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
In this article we explore some of the ethical dimensions of using social media to increase the number of living kidney donors. Social media provides a platform for changing non-identifiable 'statistical victims' into 'real people' with whom we can identify and feel empathy: the so-called 'identifiable victim effect', which prompts charitable action. We examine three approaches to promoting kidney donation using social media which could take advantages of the identifiable victim effect: (a) institutionally organized campaigns based on historical cases aimed at promoting non-directed altruistic donation; (b) personal case-based campaigns organized by individuals aimed at promoting themselves/or someone with whom they are in a relationship as a recipient of directed donation; (c) institutionally organized personal case-based campaigns aimed at promoting specific recipients for directed donation. We will highlight the key ethical issues raised by these approaches, and will argue that the third option, despite raising ethical concerns, is preferable to the other two.
Collapse
|
13
|
Sharif A, Moorlock G. Influencing relatives to respect donor autonomy: Should we nudge families to consent to organ donation? Bioethics 2018; 32:155-163. [PMID: 29369376 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12420] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2017] [Revised: 09/05/2017] [Accepted: 09/29/2017] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
Refusing consent to organ donation remains unacceptably high, and improving consent rates from family or next-of-kin is an important step to procuring more organs for solid organ transplantation in countries where this approval is sought. We have thus far failed to translate fully our limited understanding of why families refuse permission into successful strategies targeting consent in the setting of deceased organ donation, primarily because our interventions fail to target underlying cognitive obstacles. Novel interventions to overcome these hurdles, incorporating an understanding of cognitive psychology and behavioral change therapy, may be beneficial. One potential intervention is to use the concept of nudge theory, where decision-making is influenced by encouraging positive reinforcement and indirect suggestion. Purposefully nudging families to given consent for organ donation by understanding, and then overcoming, their inherent cognitive biases is novel but also controversial. This article explores the roles of relatives in decisions about organ donation, how nudge theory translates to organ donation and discusses the arguments for and against its application.
Collapse
|
14
|
Moorlock G, Ives J, Bramhall S, Draper H. Should We Reject Donated Organs on Moral Grounds or Permit Allocation Using Non-Medical Criteria?: A Qualitative Study. Bioethics 2016; 30:282-92. [PMID: 26132802 PMCID: PMC4975598 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12169] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/21/2023]
Abstract
Conditional and directed deceased organ donations occur when donors (or often their next of kin) attempt to influence the allocation of their donated organs. This can include asking that the organs are given to or withheld from certain types of people, or that they are given to specified individuals. Donations of these types have raised ethical concerns, and have been prohibited in many countries, including the UK. In this article we report the findings from a qualitative study involving interviews with potential donors (n = 20), potential recipients (n = 9) and transplant staff (n = 11), and use these results as a springboard for further ethical commentary. We argue that although participants favoured unconditional donation, this preference was grounded in a false distinction between 'medical' and 'non-medical' allocation criteria. Although there are good reasons to maintain organ allocation based primarily upon the existing 'medical' criteria, it may be premature to reject all other potential criteria as being unacceptable. Part of participants' justification for allocating organs using 'medical' criteria was to make the best use of available organs and avoid wasting their potential benefit, but this can also justify accepting conditional donations in some circumstances. We draw a distinction between two types of waste - absolute and relative - and argue that accepting conditional donations may offer a balance between these forms of waste.
Collapse
|
15
|
Moorlock G. Directed altruistic living donation: what is wrong with the beauty contest? J Med Ethics 2015; 41:875-879. [PMID: 26126975 PMCID: PMC4680184 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2014-102230] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2014] [Revised: 03/03/2015] [Accepted: 06/08/2015] [Indexed: 06/04/2023]
Abstract
This paper explores the specific criticism of directed altruistic living organ donation that it creates a 'beauty contest' between potential recipients of organs. The notion of the beauty contest in transplantation was recently used by Neidich et al who stated that '[a]ltruism should be the guiding motivation for all donations, and when it [is], there is no place for a beauty contest'. I examine this beauty contest objection from two perspectives. First, I argue that, when considered against the behaviour of donors, this objection cannot be consistently raised without also objecting to other common aspects of organ donation. I then explore the beauty contest objection from the perspective of recipients, and argue that if the beauty contest is objectionable, it is because of a tension between recipient behaviour and the altruism that supposedly underpins the donation system. I conclude by briefly questioning the importance of this tension in light of the organ shortage.
Collapse
|
16
|
Moorlock G, Neuberger J, Draper H. Split liver transplantation: Papering over the cracks of the organ shortage. Clinical Ethics 2015; 10:83-89. [DOI: 10.1177/1477750915599703] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/13/2023]
Abstract
Splitting livers allows two people (usually an adult and a child) to receive a liver transplant from one donated adult liver, but the risks to the adult recipient are greater than if they had received the equivalent whole liver. It has been suggested, therefore, that splitting livers harms adult recipients. Without liver splitting, however, there would be few livers available for children, and paediatric waiting time and waiting list mortality would significantly increase. In this paper, we argue that although splitting livers makes adults worse off, this should be considered sub-optimal benefit rather than harm. We explore justifications for sub-optimally benefitting adults in this way and consider alternatives to the current approach. We argue that splitting livers masks the more fundamental problem of low paediatric donation rates and that increasing the number of paediatric donations would improve the situation for both adult and paediatric liver patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Greg Moorlock
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Heather Draper
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Moorlock G, Ives J, Draper H. Altruism in organ donation: an unnecessary requirement? J Med Ethics 2014; 40:134-8. [PMID: 23538329 PMCID: PMC3913211 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100528] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2012] [Revised: 02/05/2013] [Accepted: 03/12/2013] [Indexed: 05/24/2023]
Abstract
Altruism has long been taken to be the guiding principle of ethical organ donation in the UK, and has been used as justification for rejecting or allowing certain types of donation. We argue that, despite this prominent role, altruism has been poorly defined in policy and position documents, and used confusingly and inconsistently. Looking at how the term has been used over recent years allows us to define 'organ donation altruism', and comparing this with accounts in the philosophical literature highlights its theoretical shortcomings. The recent report from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics reaffirmed the importance of altruism in organ donation, and offered a clearer definition. This definition is, however, more permissive than that of altruism previously seen in UK policy, and as a result allows some donations that previously have been considered unacceptable. We argue that while altruistic motivation may be desirable, it is not necessary.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Greg Moorlock
- Medicine, Ethics, Society and History, University of Birmingham, , Birmingham, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|