Advertisement

Ethical Implications in Donor and Recipient Utilization for Liver Transplant

  • Ramesh K. BatraEmail author
Liver (D Mulligan and R Batra, Section Editors)
  • 8 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Liver

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The inception of liver transplantation although controversial continues to save daily lives of patients in need. Its successful practice is owed to the various medical advancements to cross the complex immunological and surgical barriers. Herein, we discuss the several ethical dilemmas in organ donation and transplantation with application of ethical principles and reflections from the literature

Recent Findings

There are several ethical and moral complexities when evaluating living donors and matching deceased donor livers to recipients. The lack of “one size fits all” turns these complexities into controversies and thus requires a well-balanced ethical approach for better acceptance.

Summary

Since the practice of transplant is dependent on the moral behaviors of society, i.e., act of organ donation, it confers many ethical issues that the transplant community has to carefully address. These issues are doubly onerous because every act of transplant has two parties involved: the donor and the recipient. Therefore, transplant physicians have to uphold the ethics of physician-patient relationship for the recipient, fair allocation of donor organs, and demonstrate good organ stewardship for the donated gift of the community, i.e., the organ. Thus, practice of organ transplantation is a unique blend of utilitarian and egalitarian principles while also being equitable and in line with the moral code of the Hippocratic Oath.

Keywords

Liver transplant Organ donation Bioethics Organ allocation Autonomy Physician paternalism MELD 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. David Mulligan (2019 President Elect, United Network for Organ Sharing; Professor and Chief, Yale New Haven Transplant Center), for his support, including review of this chapter.

Funding Information

This work was supported in part by Health Resources and Services Administration contract 234-2005-37011C.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Disclaimer

The content is the responsibility of the authors alone and does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Beauchamp T CJ. The principles of biomedical ethics. New York, NY: Oxford; 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 64 FR 56659, Oct. 20, 1999, as amended at 64 FR 71626, Dec. 21, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Consensus Statement of the Amsterdam Forum on the Care of the Live Kidney Donor. Transplantation. 2004;78(4):491-2.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barr ML, Belghiti J, Villamil FG, Pomfret EA, Sutherland DS, Gruessner RW, et al. A report of the Vancouver Forum on the care of the live organ donor: lung, liver, pancreas, and intestine data and medical guidelines. Transplantation. 2006;81(10):1373–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delmonico FL, Harmon WE. The use of a minor as a live kidney donor. Am J Transplant. 2002;2(4):333–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Authors For The Live Organ Donor Consensus G. Consensus Statement on the Live Organ Donor. JAMA. 2000;284(22):2919–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ross LF, Thistlethwaite JR. Minors as living solid-organ donors. Pediatrics. 2008;122(2):454–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aalamian Z, Abbey S, Acott P, et al. Enhancing living donation: a Canadian Forum Report and Recommendations [Internet]. Canadian Council for Donation and Transplantation: Edmonton, AB; 2006. Available at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2007/hc-sc/H14-15-2006E.pdf Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Campbell M, Wright L, Greenberg RA, Grant D. How young is too young to be a living donor? Am J Transplant. 2013;13(7):1643–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lopp L. Final report: a common frame of reference for European laws on living organ donation. Work Package 3: Legal Restrictions and Safeguards for Living Donation in Europe/Part1: Comparative analysis of European transplant laws regarding living organ donation: an overview EULOD (Living Organ Donation in Europe); 2012. Available at: http://www.eulod.org/Files/Eulod/Content_Files/p2vCMDeliverable.No7.WWUM.Short.Version.pdf.
  11. 11.
    Human Tissue Act [United Kingdom] [Internet]. London, UK: Government of the United Kingdom; 2004. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/30/section/2.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Human Tissue (Scotland) Act, Part 1, Sect. 17 and Part 7, Sect. 60.(1) [Internet]. Edinburgh, UK: Government of Scotland; 2006. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2006/4/pdfs/asp_20060004_en.pdf.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Han JH, You YK, Na GH, Kim EY, Lee SH, Hong TH, et al. Outcomes of living donor liver transplantation using elderly donors. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2014;86(4):184–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kubota T, Hata K, Sozu T, Ueda Y, Hirao H, Okamura Y, et al. Impact of donor age on recipient survival in adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation. Ann Surg. 2018;267(6):1126–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ikegami T, Taketomi A, Ohta R, Soejima Y, Yoshizumi T, Shimada M, et al. Donor age in living donor liver transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2008;40(5):1471–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Uchiyama H, Shirabe K, Kimura K, Yoshizumi T, Ikegami T, Harimoto N, et al. Outcomes of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation in 321 recipients. Liver Transpl. 2016;22(3):305–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ono Y, Kawachi S, Hayashida T, Wakui M, Tanabe M, Itano O, et al. The influence of donor age on liver regeneration and hepatic progenitor cell populations. Surgery. 2011;150(2):154–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Timchenko NA. Aging and liver regeneration. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2009;20(4):171–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Enkhbold C, Morine Y, Utsunomiya T, Imura S, Ikemoto T, Arakawa Y, et al. Dysfunction of liver regeneration in aged liver after partial hepatectomy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;30(7):1217–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang K, Jiang WT, Deng YL, Pan C, Shen ZY. Effect of donor age on graft function and long-term survival of recipients undergoing living donor liver transplantation. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2015;14(1):50–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Feng S, Goodrich NP, Bragg-Gresham JL, Dykstra DM, Punch JD, DebRoy MA, et al. Characteristics associated with liver graft failure: the concept of a donor risk index. Am J Transplant. 2006;6(4):783–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Braat AE, Blok JJ, Putter H, Adam R, Burroughs AK, Rahmel AO, et al. The eurotransplant donor risk index in liver transplantation: ET-DRI. Am J Transplant. 2012;12(10):2789–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lué A, Solanas E, Baptista P, Lorente S, Araiz JJ, Garcia-Gil A, et al. How important is donor age in liver transplantation? 2016;22(21):4966.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rana A, Hardy MA, Halazun KJ, Woodland DC, Ratner LE, Samstein B, et al. Survival outcomes following liver transplantation (SOFT) score: a novel method to predict patient survival following liver transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2008;8(12):2537–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reddy MS, Varghese J, Venkataraman J, Rela M. Matching donor to recipient in liver transplantation: relevance in clinical practice. World J Hepatol. 2013;5(11):603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goldberg DS, Charlton M. Usefulness of liver transplantation in the elderly: the converging impact of risk and benefit. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(2):306–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Durand F, Levitsky J, Cauchy F, Gilgenkrantz H, Soubrane O, Francoz C. Age and liver transplantation. J Hepatol. 2019;70(4):745–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Su F, Yu L, Berry K, Liou IW, Landis CS, Rayhill SC, et al. Aging of liver transplant registrants and recipients: trends and impact on waitlist outcomes, post-transplantation outcomes, and transplant-related survival benefit. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(2):441–53.e6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schwartz JJ, Pappas L, Thiesset HF, Vargas G, Sorensen JB, Kim RD, et al. Liver transplantation in septuagenarians receiving model for end-stage liver disease exception points for hepatocellular carcinoma: the national experience. Liver Transpl. 2012;18(4):423–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    • Cucchetti A, Ross LF, Thistlethwaite JR, Vitale A, Ravaioli M, Cescon M, et al. Age and equity in liver transplantation: an organ allocation model. Liver Transpl. 2015;21(10):1241–9 The authors provide a unique perspective to the organ allocation policies for liver reflecting equity and efficiency based on utility. On this paradigm, an age mapping algorithm is proposed for liver allocation to increase lifespan of an organ. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Panchal HJ, Durinka JB, Patterson J, Karipineni F, Ashburn S, Siskind E, et al. Survival outcomes in liver transplant recipients with model for end-stage liver disease scores of 40 or higher: a decade-long experience. HPB. 2015;17(12):1074–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Charpentier KP, Mavanur A. Removing patients from the liver transplant wait list: a survey of US liver transplant programs. Liver Transpl. 2008;14(3):303–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Linecker M, Krones T, Berg T, Niemann CU, Steadman RH, Dutkowski P, et al. Potentially inappropriate liver transplantation in the era of the “sickest first” policy – a search for the upper limits. J Hepatol. 2018;68(4):798–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Engel M. Va. Doctor plans company to arrange sale of human kidneys. The Washington Post; September 1983. Available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1983/09/19/va-doctor-plans-company-to-arrange-sale-of-human-kidneys/afdfac69-62ed-4066-b296-fcf892eab758/.
  35. 35.
    Sullivan W. Buying of kidneys of poor attached. The New York Times; September 1983. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/24/us/buying-of-kidneys-of-poor-attacked.html.
  36. 36.
    National Organ Transplantation Act of 1984, Pub L. 98-507, 98 Stat. 2339-2348 (Oct. 19, 1984).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    United States Congress. 2007. Charlie W. Norwood Living Organ Donation Act, Pub. L. No. 110–144, 121 Stat 1814 (2007) [On-line]. Available: https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ144/PLAW-110publ144.pdf (accessed August 28, 2019).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Clarke KS, Klarenbach S, Vlaicu S, Yang RC, Garg AX. The direct and indirect economic costs incurred by living kidney donors-a systematic review. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006;21(7):1952–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    • Tong A, Ralph AF, Chapman JR, Wong G, Gill JS, Josephson MA, et al. Focus group study of public opinion about paying living kidney donors in Australia. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;10(7):1217–26 This is the first study of its kind to demonstrate and analyze the public opinion about financial incentivization of organ donors. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tong A, Chapman JR, Wong G, Craig JC. Perspectives of transplant physicians and surgeons on reimbursement, compensation, and incentives for living kidney donors. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;64(4):622–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Taher L. Moral and ethical issues in liver and kidney transplantation. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2005;16(3):375–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Perry P. What you need to know about human organ trafficking. (25th April 2016). Available at https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/what-you-need-to-know-about-human-organ-trafficking.
  43. 43.
    United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking (UN.GIFT) Available at : https://www.unodc.org/pdf/gift%20brochure.pdf.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ghods AJ. Renal transplantation in Iran. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2002;17(2):222–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ghods AJ, Savaj S. Iranian model of paid and regulated living-unrelated kidney donation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;1(6):1136–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Malek-Hosseini SA, Jafarian A, Nikeghbalian S, Poustchi H, Lankarani KB, Nasiri Toosi M, et al. Liver transplantation status in Iran: a multi-center report on the main transplant indicators and survival rates. Arch Iran Med. 2018;21(7):275–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Danovitch GM. The high cost of organ transplant commercialism. Kidney Int. 2014;85(2):248–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    • Batra R. The moral hypocrisy of a transplant surgeon. American College of Surgeons. Available at https://www.facs.org/member-services/yfa/advocacy-essays/rbatra This is an excellent essay that portrays the conflicts of transplant physicians, as they uphold the moral obligation of physician patient relationship while also reflecting civic duties of good organ stewardship. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Yale School of Medicine, Yale New Haven Transplant CenterYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations