Skip to main content

Should Children Be Given Priority in Kidney Allocation?

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    A point made by Capitaine et al. 2014. They explain various difficulties in paediatric research that make it hard to show what transplants do for children. We would add that the paediatric priority makes it hard to find a comparison group of children with kidney failure who have not been transplanted.

  2. 2.

    Veatch (2000) argues that age bias should extend across the whole range, but instead of a smooth decline, he favours a stronger but rapidly declining priority to children age nought to ten and then ten-year-olds get a small priority over those older that slowly dwindles across the rest of the life span. But he gives no reason for this priority judgement.

  3. 3.

    The material in this paragraph is taken from Axelrod et al. (2010, 995). Magee et al. write of the “great concern” about the “higher priority granted for deceased donors, which has resulted in a reduction of living donor transplantation” (2008, 937). Wolff et al. 2014 claim the priority to children has caused a similar reduction in supply in Quebec.

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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Dittmer, I., and J. Roake. 2000. The New Zealand National Kidney Allocation System. New Zealand Medical Journal 113(1112): 253–255.

    CAS  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google 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 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank John McCall and Stephen Munn for very helpful discussions, and Monique Jonas, Geoff Kemp, Kathy Smits, and Steve Winter for their discussion and their incisive comments on a written draft. Thanks also to audiences at Starship Hospital, the University of Auckland, and Williams College.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. M. Wilkinson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilkinson, T.M., Dittmer, I.D. Should Children Be Given Priority in Kidney Allocation?. Bioethical Inquiry 13, 535–545 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-016-9737-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Kidney allocation
  • Paediatric priority
  • Age discrimination
  • Justice
  • Utility
  • Live donation