Advertisement

Pediatric Nephrology

, Volume 21, Issue 10, pp 1357–1363 | Cite as

Psychosocial evaluation of candidates for living related kidney donation

  • Kimberly Sterner
  • Nataliya ZelikovskyEmail author
  • Cynthia Green
  • Bernard S. Kaplan
Editorial Commentary

Abstract

Living kidney donation has raised practical and ethical questions since renal transplantation became possible 50 years ago. Nevertheless, living donors are a common source for badly needed organs in the pediatric population. The safety and well being of the living donor are important concerns. Among the risks of living donation are those of a psychological and social nature. To protect these donor interests, psychosocial evaluations of donors are done at some transplant centers, but there is a lack of consistency regarding standardization of the evaluation, the content of the evaluation, and the role of the interviewer. Goals of the overall living donor evaluation for kidney transplantation at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and the components of the psychosocial evaluation protocol in particular, are presented. The protocol’s strengths are discussed, including the standardization of evaluations for all potential donors; the broad spectrum of psychosocial domains assessed; the psychometric measures administered; the systematic handling of negative results and some donors’ desire to opt out; and the protection of confidentiality. Future directions with regard to long-term psychosocial outcomes and research protocols are discussed.

Keywords

Living related kidney donation Psychosocial evaluation Bioethical issues Organ transplant 

References

  1. 1.
    United Network for Organ Sharing Web site. Available at https://doi.org/www.unos.org. Accessed 26 May 2005
  2. 2.
    Johnson EM, Remucal MJ, Gillingham KJ, Dahms RA, Najarian JS, Matas AJ (1997) Complications and risks of living donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 64:1124–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Russell S, Jacob RG (1993) Living-related organ donation: the donor’s dilemma. Patient Educ Couns 21:89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tokarski C (2002) Live organ donation: one step forward, two steps back. Highlights from National Committee for Quality Health Care’s Conference on Organ Donation and Transplantation: A Commitment to Quality (Medscape website). Available at https://doi.org/www.medscape.com/viewarticle/445640. Accessed 12 Aug 2003
  5. 5.
    Davis CL, Delmonico FL (2005) Living-donor kidney transplantation: a review of the current practices for the live donor. J Am Soc Nephrol 16:2098–2110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tokarski C (2002) Live organ donations present new ethical dilemmas (Medscape website). Available at https://doi.org/www.medscape.com/viewarticle/445068. Accessed 12 Aug 2003
  7. 7.
    Rudow DL, Brown RS (2003) Evaluation of living liver donors. Prog Transplant 13:110–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zink S, Weinreib R, Sparling T, Caplan A (2002) Living donation: focus on public concerns. Consensus statement presented at Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ethics Committee of the Transplantation Society (2004) The consensus statement of the Amsterdam forum on the care of the live kidney donor. Transplantation 78:491–492Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abecassis M, Adams M, Adams P, Arnold RM, Atkins CR, Barr ML, Bennett WM, Bia M, Briscoe DM, Burdick J, Corry RJ, Davis J, Delmonico FL, Gaston RS, Harmon W, Jacobs CL, Kahn J, Leichtman A, Miller C, Moss D, Newmann JM, Rosen LS, Siminoff L, Spital A, Starnes VA, Thomas C, Tyler LS, Williams L, Wright FH, Youngner S; Live Organ Donor Consensus Group (2000) Consensus statement on the live organ donor. JAMA 284:2919–2926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leo RJ, Smith BA, Mori DL (2003) Guidelines for conducting a psychiatric evaluation of the unrelated kidney donor. Psychosomatics 44:452–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Olbrisch ME, Benedict SM, Haller DL, Levenson JL (2001) Psychosocial assessment of living organ donors: clinical and ethical considerations. Prog Transplant 11:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lennerling A, Forsberg A, Nyberg G (2003) Becoming a living kidney donor. Transplantation 76:1243–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yi M (2003) Decision-making process for living kidney donors. J Nurs Scholarsh 35:61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spital A (2001) Ethical issues in living organ donation: donor autonomy and beyond. Am J Kidney Dis 38:189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson EM, Anderson JK, Jacobs C, Suh G, Humar A, Suhr BD, Kerr SR, Matas AJ (1999) Long term follow up of living kidney donors: quality of life after donation. Transplantation 67:717–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walter M, Bronner E, Steinmuller T, Klapp BF, Danzer G (2002) Psychosocial data of potential living donors before living donor liver transplantation. Clin Transplant 16:55–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cabrer C, Oppenhaimer F, Manyalich M (2003) The living kidney donation process: the donor perspective. Transplant Proc 35:1631–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Derogatis LR (1994) SCL-90-R-Symptom Checklist-90-R, administration, scoring, and procedures manual, 3rd edn. Minneapolis, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL (1991) The MOS social support survey. Soc Sci Med 32:705–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IPNA 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kimberly Sterner
    • 1
  • Nataliya Zelikovsky
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cynthia Green
    • 1
  • Bernard S. Kaplan
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Nephrology, The Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations