Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Empirical and normative aspects of medical technology assessment. The case of reduced-size liver transplantations with living donors

  • Non Thematic Articles
  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Medical technology assessment deals with the evaluation of novel or existing health care procedures. This paper addresses the interdependence between factual and normative issues, using the controversies about acceptability and desirability of reduced-size liver transplantations with living donors as example.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Longino H. Beyond “bad science”: Skeptical reflections on the value-freedom of scientific inquiry.Science, Technology and Human Values Winter 1983: 7–17.

  2. Putnam H.Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981 (especially Chapters 6 and 9).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Singer PA, Siegler M, Lantos JD, Emond JC, Whitington PF, Thistlehwaite JR and Broelsch CE. The ethical assessment of innovative therapies: liver transplantation using living donors.Theoretical Medicine 1990;11:87–94.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Starzl, and O'Grady, both inAmerican Medical News, 15.12.89; Busutill RW. Living-related liver donation: CON.Transplantation Proceedings 1991;23:43–45, Fox RC, Swazey JPSpare Parts. Organ Replacement in American Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

  5. Brennan JM.The Open-Texture of Moral Concepts. Cambridge: Macmillan, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Singer PA, Siegler M, Whitington PF, Lantos JD, Emond JC, Thistlehwaite JR and Broelsch CE. Ethics of liver transplantation with living donors.The New England Journal of Medicine 1989;321:620–622.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Haberal M, Tokyay R, Telatar Het al. (1992). Living related and cadaver donor liver transplantation.Transplantation Proceedings 1992;24(5):1967–1969.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Emond JC, Whitington PF, Thistlehwaite JR, Alonso EM and Broelsch CE. Reduced-size orthotopic liver transplantation: Use in the management of children with chronic liver disease.Hepatology 1989;10(5):867–872.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Broelsch CE, Emond JC, Thistlehwaite JR, Rouch DA, Whitington PF and Lichtor JL. Liver transplantation with reduced-size donor organs.Transplantation 1988;45(3):519–523.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Otte JB, De Ville de Goyet J, Sokal Eet al. Size reduction of the donor liver is a safe way to alleviate the shortage of size-matched organs in pediatric liver transplantation.Annals of Surgery 1990;211(2):146–157.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bismuth H and Houssin D. Reduced-size orthotopic liver graft in hepatic transplantation in children.Surgery 1984;95:367–370.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nagao T, Inoue S, Mizuta T, Saito H, Kawano N and Morioka Y. One hundred hepatic resections: indications and operative results.Annals of Surgery 1985;202:42–49.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Singeret al. ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bax NMA, Vermeire BMJ, Dubois N, Madern G, Meradji M and Molenaar JC. Orthotopic nonauxiliary homotransplantation of part of the liver in dogs.Journal of Pediatric Surgery 1982;17(6):906–913; Cherqui D, Emond JC, Pietrabissa A, Michel M, Roncella M and Broelsch CE. Orthotopic liver transplantation from living donors. An experimental study in the dog.Chirurgie 1990;116:711–720.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Singeret al. ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Busutill RW. Living-related liver donation: CON.Transplantation Proceedings 1991;23:43–45.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Michielsen P. Criteria for selecting organ donors and recipients.Health Policy 1990;16(2):117–122. Jakobson A. A second opinion — In defence of the living donor transplant.Health Policy 1990;16(2):123–126.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Busutill: ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Starzl TE, Demetris AJ and van Thiel D. Liver transplantation.The New England Journal of Medicine 1989;321:1014–1022 and 1092–1099.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ibid. 1093.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Markus BH, Duquesnoy RJ, Gordon RDet al. Histocompatibility and liver transplant outcome. Does HLA exert a dualistic effect?Transplantation 1988;46(3):372–377.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ibid. 375.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Busutill: ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Emondet al. ibid.:870.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Otteet al.: ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Eurotransplant Newsletter, No. 61 February 1989.

  27. General Problems Associated with Solid-Organ Transplantation. Report of the Dutch Health Council, 1987, No. 3: 161.

  28. Michielsen P. Criteria for selecting organ donors and recipients.Health Policy 1990;16(2):117–122. Michielsen P. Organ shortage — What to do?Transplantation Proceedings 1992;24(6):2391–2392. Roels L and Michielsen P. Altruism, self-determination, and organ procurement efficiency: The European experience.Transplantation Proceedings 1991;23(5):2514–2515. Roels L, Vanrenterghem Y, Ware M, Christiaens MR, Gruwez J and Michielsen P. Three years of experience with a “presumed consent” legislation in Belgium: Its impact on multi-organ donation in comparison with other European countries.Transplantation Proceedings 1991;23(1) 903–904.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jakobson A. A second opinion — in defence of the living donor transplant.Health Policy 1990;16(2):123–126. Land W. and Cohen B. Postmortem and living organ donation in Europe: Transplant laws and activities.Transplantation Proceedings 1992;24(5):2165–2167.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Roscam Abbing HDC. Organ donation, the legal framework.Health Policy 1990;16(2):105–116.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Virnig BA and Caplan AL, Required request: What difference has it made?Transplantation Proceedings 1992;24(5):2155–2158.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Poupon RE, Balkau B, Eschwege E, Poupon R and the UDCA-PBC study group. A multicenter, controlled trial of ursodiol for the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis.The New England Journal of Medicine 1991;324(22):1548–1554.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Singeret al. (1990): 620–622.

  34. Busutill: ibid 44.

  35. American Medical News (15.12.89).

  36. Fox RC, Swazey JP.Spare Parts. Organ Replacement in American Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mauss M.The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. Trans. Ian Cunnison. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Markuset al. ibid.

  39. In this particular case, a theory is involved which aims to explain the recurrence of disease after transplantation, and to predict the probability of recurrence in view of the nature of the liver failure. The adequacy of such a theory can be assessed by reference to its generality, testability and degree of confirmation, explanatory and predictive power, coherence, etc. See for instance Steen, WJ van der.A Practical Philosophy for the Life Sciences. Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Brennan JM.The Open-Texture of Moral Concepts. Cambridge: Macmillan, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Putnam ibid. Chapters 6 and 9.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Beauchamp TL, Childress JP (1989).Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989 (third edition): 194.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Dworkin G.The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge Studies in Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 1988: 20.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Singeret al. ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  45. For a discussion of the rationale of autonomy see Dworkin ibid: 21–33.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Guttmann RD. The graft survival curve: Ideology and rhetoric.Transplantation Proceedings 1992;24(6):2407–2410.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Pichlmayr R, Kohlhaw K, Frei U. Organ transplantation: What are the limits?Transplantation Proceedings 1992;24(6):2404–2406.

    Google Scholar 

  48. The predicament is known as the control-dilemma: in order to proceed in a responsible way, we need more data; in order to obtain more data, we need to proceed anyhow (D. Collingridge.The Social Control of Technology. London: Francis Pinter, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Dutton, DB.Worse Than the Disease. Pitfalls of Medical Progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Steen, WJ van der.A Practical Philosophy for the Life Sciences. Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medical Sciences, Department of Medical Informatics, Epidemiology and Statistics, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, 6500 HB, The Netherlands

    Gert J. Van Der Wilt

Authors
  1. Gert J. Van Der Wilt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van Der Wilt, G.J. Empirical and normative aspects of medical technology assessment. The case of reduced-size liver transplantations with living donors. Theor Med Bioeth 16, 291–316 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00998147

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00998147

Key words

Search

Navigation