Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 535–545 | Cite as

Should Children Be Given Priority in Kidney Allocation?

Original Research

Abstract

Kidneys for transplantation are scarce, and many countries give priority to children in allocating them. This paper explains and criticizes the paediatric priority. We set out the relevant ethical principles of allocation, such as utility and severity, and the relevant facts to do with such matters as sensitization and child development. We argue that the facts and principles do not support and sometimes conflict with the priority given to children. We next consider various views on how age or the status of children should affect allocation. Again, these views do not support priority to children in its current form. Since distinctions based on age ought to be positively justified, the failure of all these attempts at justification implies that the priority to children is ethically mistaken. Finally, the paper points to evidence that the paediatric priority reduces the overall supply of kidneys, at least in the United States. Paediatric priority is a real-world policy that seems discriminatory, in some places probably reduces the supply of organs, has no robust official defence, and is unsupported by mainstream ethical principles. Consequently, it should be ended.

Keywords

Kidney allocation Paediatric priority Age discrimination Justice Utility Live donation 

References

  1. Andreoni, K.A., R. Forbes, R.M. Andreoni, G. Phillips, H. Stewart, and M. Ferris. 2013. Age-related kidney transplant outcomes. JAMA Internal Medicine 173(16): 1524–1532.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Amaral, S., and P.R. Reese. 2014. Children first in kidney allocation: The right thing to do. Transplant International 27(6): 530–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Axelrod, D.A., K.P. McCullough, E.D. Brewer, B.N Becker, D.L. Segev, and P.S Rao. 2010. Kidney and pancreas transplantation in the United States, 1999–2008: The changing face of living donation. American Journal of Transplantation 10(Part 2)(4): 987–1002.Google Scholar
  4. Capitaine, L., K. van Assche, G. Pennings, and K. Sterckx. 2014. Pediatric priority in kidney allocation: Challenging its acceptability. Transplant International 27(6): 533–540.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, G.A. 2011. On the currency of egalitarian justice. In On the currency of egalitarian justice, and other essays in political philosophy, ed. G.A. Cohen, 3–43. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dittmer, I., and J. Roake. 2000. The New Zealand National Kidney Allocation System. New Zealand Medical Journal 113(1112): 253–255.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnson, R.J., S.V. Fuggle, L. Mumford, J.A. Bradley, J.L.R. Forsythe, and C.J. Rudge. 2010. A new UK 2006 national kidney allocation scheme for deceased heart-beating donor kidneys. Transplantation 89(4): 387–394.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Kamm, F.M. 1993. Morality, mortality: Death and whom to save from it (Vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Magee, J.C., S.M. Krishnan, M.R. Benfield, D.T. Hsu, and B.L. Schneider. 2008. Pediatric transplantation in the United States 1997–2006. American Journal of Transplantation 8(Part 2): 935–945.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. NHS Blood and Transplant Organ Donation and Transplantation (NHSBT). 2013. Patient selection and organ allocation July 2013. http://www.odt.nhs.uk/pdf/introduction_to_selection_and_allocation_policies.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2013.
  11. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). 2014a. Policies. https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/governance/policies/. Accessed June 30, 2014.
  12. ———. 2014b. Ethical principles of pediatric organ allocation. http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/resources/ethics/ethical-principles-of-pediatric-organ-allocation/. Accessed July 31, 2015.
  13. Persad, G., A. Wertheimer, and E.J. Emanuel. 2009. Principles for the allocation of scarce medical resources. The Lancet 373(9661): 423–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Price, D. 2000. Legal and ethical aspect of organ transplantation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. The Transplantation Society of Australia and New Zealand (TSANZ). 2014. Organ transplantation from deceased donors: consensus statement on eligibility criteria and allocation protocols. Version 1.3—8 January 2014. http://www.tsanz.com.au/downloads/ConcensusStatementV1.38Jan2014_000.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2015.
  16. Veatch, R. 2000. Transplantation ethics. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Williams, A. 1997. Intergenerational equity: An exploration of the “fair innings” argument. Health Economics 6(2): 117–132.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Wolff, J.-L., M. Carrier, M. Masse, and N. Philippe. 2014. The pediatric priority in organ allocation is not necessary and is counterproductive—Proposal for an alternative ethical model. In Organ transplantation: Ethical, legal and psychosocial aspects, ed. W. Weimar, M.A. Bos, and J.J.V. Busschbach, 177–180. Lengerich: Pabst.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Politics and International RelationsThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Renal MedicineAuckland City HospitalAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations