Ethical Issues in Pediatric Liver Transplantation

  • Imventarza Oscar Cesar
  • Rojas Luis Daniel


Organ transplantation is a recognized practice since more than 30 years ago, and the largest problem it faces is the shortage of donors. This is a world phenomenon that the society at large has not yet been able to solve, which added to the accessibility and integral support of the transplanted patient represent a source of ethical conflicts. In the particular case of pediatric liver transplantation, this situation already starts with a significant numerical inferiority in the waiting list in comparison to adults. Different strategies have been devised in favor of equity such as pediatric donors for pediatric recipients, pediatric end-stage liver disease (PELD) score × 3 (the actual PELD score multiplied by 3 to be competitive on the waiting list with adults), split liver techniques, and the living donor (LD) approach, but none of these measures have shown conclusive improved results in relation to the magnitude of the waiting list times.

Two ethical assessments derive from the above mentioned situations: the first one, related to LD and the careful evaluation that it imposes since it represents a surgical intervention in a healthy individual, with potential harmful physical and psychological consequences and, secondly, equity in the distribution process with a need for a very rigorous analysis between the most compromised patient and the one with the best chance of survival, since there are two positions that at first may look as antinomic.

Pediatric liver transplantation is a high-cost practice and requires lifelong medication and follow-up. In many low resource countries, the issue of lifelong postoperative follow-up is very important, with the risk of graft malfunction with impact on quality of life, survival, and death.


Liver transplantation Pediatric Bioethics 


  1. 1.
    Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to examine the definition of brain death. A definition of irreversible coma. JAMA. 1968;205:337–401. Eric J. Keller, Paul Y.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keller EJ, Kwo PY, Helft PR. Ethical considerations surrounding survival benefit–based liver allocation. Liver Transpl. 2014;20:140–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wells WJ, Barr ML. The ethics of living donor lung transplantation. Thorac Surg Clin. 2005;15(4):519–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mendoza Sánchez F, Sereno Trabaldo S, Montemayor Cantú G, et al. Trasplante intestinal de donador vivo relacionado: Primer reporte en Latinoamérica. Rev Invest Clin. 2011;63(Suppl 1):96–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Welman T, Villani V, Shanmugarajah K, et al. From kidney transplants to vascularized composite allografts: the role of the plastic surgeon in transplantation vascularized composite. Allotransplantation. 2015;2(4)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borel JF, Kis ZL. The discovery and development of cyclosporine (Sandimmune). Transplant Proc. 1991;23:1867–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Matesanz R (Editor). El modelo español de coordinación y transplantes. 2ª Edición. 2008. GRUPO Aula Médica, Madrid, 2008.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Starzl TE, Putnam CW, editors. Experience in hepatic transplantation. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 1969. p. 131–5.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liver Transplantation. NIH Consensus Statement. 1983;4(7):1–15. US Department of Health and Human Services. Hepatology. 1984;4(1 Suppl):107s–110s.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Singer PA, Siegler M, Whintington PF, et al. Ethics of Liver transplantation with living donors. N Engl J Med. 1989;321:620–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Organizació Catalana de Trasplantaments, Servei Catalá de la Salut, Societat Catalana de Transplantament. Etica de la donación en vivo (Editorial). Butlleti Trasplantaments. 2007;36:1.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chugh KS, Jha V. Treatment modality options: Problems and outcomes of living unrelated donor transplants in the developing countries. Kidney Int. 2000;57:S131–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robertson CM, Dinu IA, Joffe AR, et al. Neurocognitive outcomes at kindergarten entry after liver transplantation at 3yr of age. Pediatr Transplant. 2013;17:621–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schaubel DE, Guidinger MK, Biggins SW, et al. Survival benefit based deceased-donor liver allocation. Am J Transplant. 2009;9:970–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15. Accessed 17 Mar 2018.
  16. 16.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989.Google Scholar

Suggested Bibliography

  1. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1979.Google Scholar
  2. Brown H. La nueva filosofía de la ciencia. Madrid: Tecnos; 1983.Google Scholar
  3. Popper K. La lógica de la investigación científica. 13° ed. Madrid: Tecnos.Google Scholar
  4. Sgreccia E. Manual de Bioética, vol. I. Madrid, BAC; 2009.Google Scholar
  5. Valapour D. Living donor transplantation: the perfect balance of public oversight and medical responsibility. J Clin Ethics. 2007 Spring;18(1):18–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Imventarza Oscar Cesar
    • 1
  • Rojas Luis Daniel
    • 2
  1. 1.Hospital Argerich- Hospital GarrahanBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.EAIT (Transplant Institute of Buenos Aires City)Buenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations