The Family of a Donor Organ Does Not Receive Any Money or Pay Any Fees.
BMJ. 2006 October 7; 333(7571): 746–748.
Controversy
Payment for living organ donation should be legalised
Amy L Friedman
1 Section of Organ Transplantation and Immunology, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven CT 06520, USA ude.elay@namdeirf.yma
Curt abstruse
Governments seem resistant to allowing alive donors to benefit from their gift. Only a legalised organization could solve organ shortages and exist both safer and fairer
The need for life saving organ transplantation has so outpaced supply that waiting patients and transplant teams are desperate. Improved survival rates coupled with steady expansion of indications for transplantation make the organ shortage progressively astringent; waiting times are at present unbearably long. Although legalisation of "presumed consent" strategies has succeeded in raising organ donation rates in Spain and elsewhere,1 other proposed solutions such as voluntary reciprocal altruismii remain cumbersome and risk excluding people with poor healthcare literacy.
What price a kidney?
Credit: ROQUE/AP PAT
Lack of donors has led to some patients contracting with organ brokers to purchase a kidney from a living donor. Because payment for organs is illegal in most countries, people may travel to the donor's homeland for the transplantation.3 Limited studies betoken possible exploitation of these paid donors, who may get minimal benefit from their purported fiscal compensation.4 More worrisome is our lack of knowledge almost adverse outcomes they experience. If payment or reward for living donors can be fabricated legitimate and ethically consistent with other accepted medical practices, exploitation can exist prevented and both donors and recipients can be treated equitably.
Tangible benefits of living donor transplantation
In 2005, United States transplant centres reported 6562 living donor kidney transplantations.5 It is reasonable to assume that well-nigh all recipients who survive surgery with a functioning kidney derive tangible benefit. Just it is not only recipients who do good. Recipients of donated organs are able to live without dialysis. Thus their family members accept liberalised lifestyles and may benefit from extra income if the recipient returns to work. Doctors volition exist paid for each transplantation. And other hospital staff, such as administrators and transplant coordinators, whose jobs depend on the volume of transplantations, will validate their effectiveness by satisfying job requirements. Transplant programmes and their home institutions gain college instance volumes, which improves their reputation and gives them a competitive advantage.six Taxpayers might as well benefit financially because the back up of a kidney transplant recipient is less costly than haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis.7 Furthermore, many recipients will restart work and pay taxes.
In dissimilarity, living donors are prohibited past law from receiving "valuable consideration" in exchange for their gift. Although US donors' firsthand medical care is covered by the recipients' insurance, donors have to pay costs of travel to the site of transplantation and go no compensation for lost wages.8 Concern that these costs might terminate people donating led to incorporation of pilot grants in the signed but still unfunded Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act of 2004. Interestingly, the only non-psychologically derived donor do good occurs if a previous donor needs a kidney transplant. The resource allotment regulations for organs from deceased donors give priority to candidates on the waiting list who accept given whole or segments of organs.9 This represents a societal determination that an individual'south human action of donation is morally deserving of tangible reward.
Fiscal rewards for other uses of the human trunk
Payment for donation of other bodily fabric is legal in the US (table). Auction of regenerative products such equally hair, blood, and semen has minimal medical gamble for the donor. It is accustomed that they are sold for financial proceeds, with disproportionate representation of the economically disadvantaged. Legal and upstanding consequences of misleading buyers well-nigh the risks of disease transmission (blood, sperm) or genetic legacies (sperm) brand this process increasingly complex.
Table ane
Reimbursement and risks associated with donating or renting human torso or body parts in Us
| Payment legal | Donor morbidity | Donor bloodshed (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hair | Aye | Minimal | 0 |
| Blood | Aye | Minimal | 0 |
| Sperm | Yeah | Minimal | 0 |
| Egg | Yes | + | 0 |
| Surrogate pregnancy | Yes | ++ | 0.005x |
| Participating in drug trial | Yes | ++ | Variable |
| Prostitution | Yes* | ++++ | 0.411 |
| Alive kidney | No | ++ | 0.0312 |
| Alive liver | No | +++ | ~ 1 |
Human being eggs are now widely sought for assisted reproduction. Although donors are sought openly for lucrative prices ($8000 (£4200; €6200) per drove in one April 2006 advertisement),13 they are rarely fully educated virtually the risks such as ovarian hyperstimulation, ovarian cancer, and future infertility.fourteen Egg donation requires both prolonged hormonal manipulation and an invasive process, then has traditionally appealed just to emotionally (or genetically) related donors or women in financial need, such as university students. The master differences betwixt altruistic an egg and donating a kidney are the degree of risk of morbidity and mortality associated with the procurement process; the size of the donor'south remainder reserve; and the fact that but women can donate an egg.
Use of the intact, functional body for the purposes of pregnancy or sexual gratification entails greater risk. Legalisation of prostitution has been advocated in order to reduce both law-breaking and disease related risks and to eliminate the exploitation past 3rd parties (pimps). Although many people spurn these arguments, prostitution is legal in several European countries and at least 1 Us country. Past contrast, rental of a surrogate mother'southward uterus for a pregnancy is legal throughout the US, with fees as high as $thirty 000. The substantial risks to the surrogate mother, including transfusion, visceral prolapse, urinary incontinence, expiry, and immunological sensitisation, make notable parallels with the purchase of a kidney from a living donor. Has the upstanding acceptance of payment for surrogate maternity been influenced by impassioned, clear, assertive, and wealthy people who want to be parents? Or do we believe that the drive to procreate justifies donor risks?
Unquestionably, the strongest parallel can be drawn with payments to volunteer participants in inquiry studies. Without payment it is unlikely that sufficient people would volunteer. Solicitations are openly advertised and condoned past regulatory bodies responsible for the supervision of human being investigations. The same university newspaper that carried the advert for egg donors independent 23 advertisements for report participants, ranging from salubrious adults to smokers, obese people, and even children younger than 3 years old. Although nearly of these enquiry protocols entail safe interventions, any investigation conducted to advance medicine and scientific discipline may event in unexpected and even catastrophic events, equally shown by contempo cases in the US and UK.15 ,xvi If it is reasonable, legal, and ethically justified to motivate someone using monetary advantage to participate in human enquiry, so past extension the aforementioned person should be allowed a monetary inducement or reward for donating an organ.
How would it work?
To protect potential donors, regulation and payment must exist governed by a balanced, objective, and multidisciplinary body. Organ donation should be express to the country'due south legal residents, only family members should non necessarily be excluded from donation solely because of lack of residency. The exclusion of other non-resident donors will limit exploitation of people from low income countries.17 The regulatory body should determine standardised criteria for donors and recipients, as well as a compatible fee. Local panels comprised of representatives from linked transplant centres, similar to those already in existence for eye and liver transplantation, would adjudicate on individual applications not clearly meeting the accustomed protocols.
Equitable access
Opponents of payments to living organ donors focus on several problems. The immediate past president of the United Network for Organ Sharing, Francis Delmonico, suggests that the kidney shortage is driven by societal failure to preclude preventable renal disease.18 I agree that nosotros need to meliorate the quality of care to all members of society. Withal, it seems unfair to penalise people who have already developed disease every bit a event of the flawed care they were powerless to improve or to ask patients to await for ideal medical care that seems unattainable. This is particularly true for people who are economically or ethnically disadvantaged, among whom the rates of terminate phase renal illness are disproportionately loftier. If this arroyo was reasonable, people with sexually transmitted diseases and women conveying unwanted pregnancies ought to be denied the benefits of care because they have non taken appropriate precautions. There is little nobility in dying without admission to a medical treatment that is known to have a high likelihood of prolonging life.
A compelling argument, that money in exchange for an organ would exploit the virtually needy, was countered by Anthony Monaco, a by president of the American Gild of Transplant Surgeons.19 Monaco noted that developed societies take already become comfortable with the use of tangible recognition for personal self cede that is most likely to menstruum to the needy. If armed forces service can exist recognised with inducements such as paid teaching, enlistment bonuses, and financial recovery for injury or bloodshed, why should the decision to donate an organ be viewed differently?
At the moment, kidneys are covertly transplanted in third earth countries, from indigent donors into wealthy recipients. Bringing these activities out of the cupboard by introducing governmental supervision and funding will provide equity for the poor, who will get equal access to such transplants. It is appropriate that living donors, indigent or wealthy, share in the tangible benefits of their ethical business organization for others. Non doing so, effectively restricting the disadvantaged, is unreasonably disingenuous.
Notes
Contributors and sources: ALF is an American academic transplant surgeon with 15 years' feel in the specialty. She has three relatives with kidney failure, ii of whom received kidney transplants, and has one relative who served as a live donor.
Competing interests: ALF is paid for transplanting organs from live donors.
References
1. Spital A. Conscription of cadaveric organs for transplantation: a stimulating thought whose time has not yet come. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2005;14: 107-12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Landry DW. Voluntary reciprocal altruism: a novel strategy to encourage deceased organ donation. Kidney Int 2006;69: 957-nine. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Pancevski B. Bulgarian hospital admits role in illegal transplants. Lancet 2006;387: 461. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Goyal K, Mehta RL, Schneiderman LJ, Sehgal AR. Economic and health consequences of selling a kidney in Republic of india. JAMA 2002;288: 1589-93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
vi. Axelrod DA, Guidinger MK, McCullough KP, Leichtman AB, Punch JD, Merion RM. Association of center volume with outcome after liver and kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2004;4: 920-seven. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
seven. Laupacis A, Keown PA, Pus N, Krueger H, Ferguson B, Wong C, et al. A written report of the quality of life and cost-utility of renal transplantation. Kidney Int 1996;50: 235. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Wolters HH, Heidenreich S, Senninger N. Living donor kidney transplantation: Take chances for the recipient - fiscal hazard for the donor? Transplant Proc 2003;35(6): 2091-2. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Horon IL. Underreporting of maternal deaths on decease certificates and the magnitude of the problem of maternal mortality. Am J Public Wellness 2005;95: 478-82. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Potterat JJ, Brewer DD, Muth SQ, Rothenberg RB, Woodhouse DE, Muth JB, et al. Mortality in a long-term open cohort of prostitute women. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159: 778-85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Matas AJ, Bartlett ST, Leichtman AB, Delmonico FL. Morbidity and bloodshed after living kidney donation, 1999-2001: survey of United States transplant centers. Am J Transplant 2003;three: 830-four. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Mastroianni Jr. Run a risk evaluation and informed consent for ovum donation: clinical perspective. Am J Bioethics 2001;1(4): 28-9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
fifteen. Savulescu J, Spriggs M. The hexamethonium study and the decease of a normal volunteer in research. J Med Ethics 2002;28: 3-4. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Wadman, One thousand. London's disastrous drug trial has serious side effects for research. Nature 2006;440: 388-ix. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Delmonico FL. What is the arrangement failure? Kidney International 2006;69: 954-v. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Monaco AP. Rewards for organ donation: the time has come. Kidney Int 2006;69: 955-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
vazquezhaveracter91.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1592395/
0 Response to "The Family of a Donor Organ Does Not Receive Any Money or Pay Any Fees."
Post a Comment