Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Who shall be Allowed to Give? Living Organ Donors and the Concept of Autonomy

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Free and informed consent is generally acknowledged as the legal andethical basis for living organ donation, but assessments of livingdonors are not always an easy matter. Sometimes it is necessary toinvolve psychosomatics or ethics consultation to evaluate a prospectivedonor to make certain that the requirements for a voluntary andautonomous decision are met. The paper focuses on the conceptualquestions underlying this evaluation process. In order to illustrate howdifferent views of autonomy influence the decision if a donor's offer isethically acceptable, three cases are presented – from Germany, theUnited States, and India. Each case features a person with questionabledecision-making capacity who offered to donate a kidney for a siblingwith severe renal insufficiency. Although the normative framework issimilar in the three countries, different or sometimes even contraryarguments for and against accepting the offer were brought forward. Thesubsequent analysis offers two explanations for the differences inargumentation and outcome in spite of the shared reference to autonomyas the guiding principle: (1) Decisions on the acceptability of a livingdonor cannot simply be deducted from the principle of autonomy but needto integrate contextual information; (2) understandings of the wayautonomy should be contextualized have an important influence on theevaluation of individual cases. Conclusion: Analyzing the conceptualassumptions about autonomy and its relationship to contextual factorscan help in working towards more transparent and better justifieddecisions in the assessment of living organ donors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Nicholson ML and Bradley JA. Renal transplantation from living donors. BMJ 1999; 318: 409–410.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Daar AS. Use of renal transplants from living donors. BMJ 1999; 318: 1553.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Singer PA, Siegler M, Whitington PF, Lantos JD, Emond JC, Thistlethwaite JR and Broelsch CE. Ethics of liver transplantation with living donors. N Engl J Med 1989; 321(9): 620–622.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Spital A. Unrelated Living Kidney Donors: An Update of Attitudes and Use among U.S. Transplant Centers. Transplantation 1994; 57(12): 1722–1726.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Starkman B. Inter vivos transplantation: The child and dependent adult as donors. Transplantation Proc 1985; 17(6), Suppl. 4: 40–46.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mudur G. Doctors take kidney from patient incapaéle of giving consent. BMJ 1999; 318: 753.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Safjan M and Safjan D. Transplantation from living donors who are unaéle to give consent for organ harvesting. Transplantation Proc 1996; 28(6): 3609–3611.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jacoés C, Johnson E, Anderson K, Gillingham K and Matas A. Kidney transplants from living donors: How donation affects family dynamics. Adv Ren Replace Ther 1998; 5(5): 89–97.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Johnson EM, Anderson JK, Jacoés C, Suh G, Humar A, Suhr BD, Kerr SR and Matas AJ. Longterm follow-up of living kidney donors: quality of life after donation. Transplantation 1999; 67(5): 717–721.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Westlie L, Fauchald P, Talseth T, Jakoésen A and Flatmark A. Quality of life in Norwegian kidney donors. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1993; 8(10): 1146–1150.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bernstein DM and Simmons RG. The adolescent kidney donor: The right to give. Am J Psychiatry 1974; 131: 1338–1342.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gilligan C. In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Caméridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kittay EF and Meyers DT, eds Women and Moral Theory. Totowa, NJ: Rowan & Littlefield, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Appeléaum PS. Assessing patients’ capacities to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med 1988; 319(25): 1635–1638.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Meisel A, Roth LH and Lidz CW. Toward a Model of the Legal Doctrine of Informed Consent. In: Appeléaum PS, Lidz CW and Meisel A, eds. Informed Consent – Legal Theory and Clinical Practice. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987, 192–200.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Grisso T and Appeléaum PS. Comparison of standards for assessing patients’ capacities to make treatment decisions. Am J Psychiatry 1995; 152(7): 1033–1037.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Appeléaum PS and Grisso T. The MacArthur treatment competence Study I: mental illness and consent to treatment. Law Hum Behav 1995; 19(5): 105–126.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Grisso T, Appeléaum PS, Mulvey EP and Fletcher K. The MacArthur treatment competence Study II: measures of aéilities to consent to psychiatric and medical treatments. Law Hum Behav 1995; 19(5): 127–148.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Grisso T and Appeléaum PS. The MacArthur treatment competence Study III: aéilities of patients to consent to psychiatric and medical treatments. Law Hum Behav 1995; 19(5): 149–174.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Faden R and Beauchamp T. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Roth LH, Meisel A and Lidz CW. Tests of competency to consent to treatment. Am J Psychiatry 1977; 134: 279–284.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Siléerfeld M and Checkland D. Faulty judgment, expert opinion, and decision-making capacity. Theor Med Bioethics 1999; 20: 377–393.

    Google Scholar 

  23. White BC. Competence to Consent. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Alderson P and Goodey C. Theories of consent. BMJ 1998; 317: 1313–1315.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Agich GJ. Can the patient make treatment decisions? Evaluating decisional capacity. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 1997; 64(9): 461–464.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Drane JF. Competence to Give an Informed Consent. JAMA 1984; 252(7): 925–927.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Spike J. What's love got to do with it? The altruistic giving of organs. J Clin Eth 1997; 8(2): 165–170.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mackenzie C and Stoljar N, eds Relational Autonomy. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Charland LC. Appreciation and emotion: theoretical reflections on the MacArthur treatment study. Kennedy Inst Eth J 1998; 8(4): 359–376.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Appeléaum PS. Ought we to require emotional capacity as part of decisional competence? Kennedy Inst Eth J 1998; 8(4): 377–387.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Silverman H. The role of emotions in decisional competence, standards of competency and altruistic acts. J Clin Eth 1997; 8(2): 171–175.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rhodes R, Burrows L and Reisman L. Mt. St. Anonymous – The Adolescent Living-Related Donor. HEC Forum 1992; 4(5): 314–323.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Klepper H. Incompetent Organ Donors. J Social Philosophy 1994; 25th Anniversary Special Issue: 241–255.

  34. Agich GJ. Autonomy and Long Term Care. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993: 76–113.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Elliott C. Doing harm: living organ donors, clinical research and The Tenth Man. J Med Eth 1995; 21: 91–96.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lamanna MA. Giving and getting: altruism and exchange in transplantation. J Med Human 1997; 18(3): 169–192.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Reiter-Theil S. Altruismus mit ethischen Komplikatonen? Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ethik 1999; 45: 139–148.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Goettingen, Humboldtallee 36, 37073, Goettingen, Germany E-mail

    Nikola Biller-Andorno, George J. Agich, Karen Doepkens & Henning Schauenburg

Authors
  1. Nikola Biller-Andorno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George J. Agich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karen Doepkens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Henning Schauenburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Biller-Andorno, N., Agich, G.J., Doepkens, K. et al. Who shall be Allowed to Give? Living Organ Donors and the Concept of Autonomy. Theor Med Bioeth 22, 351–368 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011842211016

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011842211016

Search

Navigation