Search

The first living donor kidney transplant in Syria was performed 44 years ago; by the end of 2022, 6265 renal transplants had been performed in Syria. Kidney, bone marrow, cornea, and stem cells are the only organs or tissues that can be transplanted in Syria. Although 3 heart transplants from deceased donors were performed in the late 1980s, cardiac transplant activities have since discontinued. In 2003, national Syrian legislation was enacted authorizing the use of organs from living unrelated and deceased donors. This important law was preceded by another big stride: the acceptance by the higher Islamic religious authorities in Syria in 2001 of the principle of procurement of organs from deceased donors, provided that consent is given by a first- or second-degree relative. After the law was enacted, kidney transplant rates increased from 7 per million population in 2002 to 17 per million population in 2007. Kidney transplants performed abroad for Syrian patients declined from 25% in 2002 to <2% in 2007. Rates plateaued through 2010, before the political crisis started in 2011. Forty-four years after the first successful kidney transplant in Syria, patients needing an organ transplant rely on living donors only. Moreover, 20 years after the law authorizing use of organs from deceased donors, a program is still not in place in Syria. The war, limited resources, and lack of public awareness about the importance of organ donation and transplant appear to be factors inhibiting initiation of a deceased donor program in Syria. A concerted and ongoing education campaign is needed to increase awareness of organ donation, change negative public attitudes, and gain societal acceptance. Every effort must be made to initiate a deceased donor program to lessen the burden on living donors and to enable national self-sufficiency in organs for transplant.

Donor-derived human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and hepatitis B virus (HBV) transmissions in transplantation have led to policies mandating assessment of donor behavioral history, and disclosure of donor increased risk (IR) status to recipients. Organ Procurement Transplantation Network (OPTN) policy safeguards were promulgated in the context of deceased donation, with its narrow time window for organ utilization and uncertainty about donor history. These policies have been applied to living donation without substantive data on risk of disease transmission in living donor transplantation. Unlike for deceased donors, the OPTN does not collect data on living donor IR status. Given the feasibility of thorough living donor evaluation via already-mandated lab tests and clinical assessments, living donor IR assessment and associated disclosures may have limited benefit in improving recipient informed consent. Applying the current IR policy to living donors may also introduce unintended consequences to donors and recipients, causing donors psychological harm, delays in donation to avoid IR status disclosure, and potential withdrawal from donation. We suggest strategies that reduce risk of harm to donor candidates while maintaining policy compliance, and review additional approaches for evaluating risk of disease transmission in living donor candidates. Data on the risk of disease transmission by living donors are needed to inform policy modification., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

In Jordan, the history of organ transplantation started in 1972 with a kidney transplant from a deceased donor. At present, Jordan is in a good position with regard to organ transplantation among developing countries. It remains important to follow through with some decisions and enact laws that would increase the percentage of legal organ donations and transplant procedures. This has involved the expansion of relative degree donation. Until 2013, most relative degree donations involved 1st-degree and 2nd-degree relatives. The degree of genetical and legal relatives in living organ donation was then expanded to allow 4th- and 5th-degree relatives. This expansion to a 5th-degree relative came about when it was realized that the percentage of organ transplants in 2nd-degree relatives was high. Therefore, the idea of organ donation in these degrees may be beneficial, as it can lead to significantly higher numbers of organ donations.

Organ donation should neither enrich donors nor impose financial burdens on them. We described the scope of health care required for all living kidney donors, reflecting contemporary understanding of long-term donor health outcomes; proposed an approach to identify donor health conditions that should be covered within the framework of financial neutrality; and proposed strategies to pay for this care. Despite the Affordable Care Act in the United States, donors continue to have inadequate coverage for important health conditions that are donation related or that may compromise postdonation kidney function. Amendment of Medicare regulations is needed to clarify that surveillance and treatment of conditions that may compromise postdonation kidney function following donor nephrectomy will be covered without expense to the donor. In other countries lacking health insurance for all residents, sufficient data exist to allow the creation of a compensation fund or donor insurance policies to ensure appropriate care. Providing coverage for donation-related sequelae as well as care to preserve postdonation kidney function ensures protection against the financial burdens of health care encountered by donors throughout their lives. Providing coverage for this care should thus be cost-effective, even without considering the health care cost savings that occur for living donor transplant recipients., (© 2016 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

In the United States, live organ donation can be a costly and burdensome undertaking for donors. While most donation-related medical expenses are covered, many donors still face lost wages, travel expenses, incidentals, and potential for future insurability problems. Despite widespread consensus that live donors (LD) should not be responsible for the costs associated with donation, little has changed to alleviate financial burdens for LDs in the last decade. To achieve this goal, the transplant community must actively pursue strategies and policies to eliminate unreimbursed out-of-pocket costs to LDs. Costs should be more appropriately distributed across all stakeholders; this will also make live donation possible for people who, in the current system, cannot afford to proceed. We propose the goal of LD "financial neutrality," offer an operational definition to include the coverage/reimbursement of all medical, travel, and lodging costs, along with lost wages, related to the act of donating an organ, and guidance for consideration of medical care coverage, and wage and other expense reimbursement. The intent of this report is to provide a foundation to inform discussion within the transplant community and to advance initiatives for policy and resource allocation., (© Copyright 2016 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Background: Across Europe, transplant centers vary in the content of the psychosocial evaluation for eligible living organ donors. To identify whether a common framework underlies this variation in this evaluation, we studied which psychosocial screening items are most commonly used and considered as most important in current psychosocial screening programs of living organ donors., Methods: A multivariate analytic method, concept mapping, was used to generate a visual representation of the "psychosocial" screening items of living kidney and liver donors. A list of 75 potential screening items was derived from a systematic literature review and sorted and rated for their importance and commonness by multidisciplinary affiliated health care professionals from across Europe. Results were discussed and fine-tuned during a consensus meeting., Results: The analyses resulted in a 6-cluster solution. The following clusters on psychosocial screening items were identified, listed from most to least important: (1) personal resources, (2) motivation and decision making, (3) psychopathology, (4) social resources, (5) ethical and legal factors, and (6) information and risk processing., Conclusions: We provided a conceptual framework of the essential elements in psychosocial evaluation of living donors which can serve as a uniform basis for the selection of relevant psychosocial evaluation tools, which can be further tested in prospective studies.

With the recent transposition of Directive 2010/53/EU into the transplant regulation of EU Member States, the time is right to have a closer look at its implications for living organ donation practice. We first discuss the relevance of the Action Plan which forms the basis for the policy of the European Commission in the field of organ donation and transplantation. We then analyze the impact of Directive 2010/53/EU which was adopted to support the implementation of the Priority Actions set out in the Action Plan. We more specifically focus on the obligations of transplant centers engaged in living organ donation and highlight their significance for clinical practice. Finally, we point out some strengths and weaknesses of the Directive in addressing living organ donation.

China's aims are to develop an ethical and sustainable organ transplantation system for the Chinese people and to be accepted as a responsible member of the international transplantation community. In 2007, China implemented the Regulation on Human Organ Transplantation, which was the first step towards the establishment of a voluntary organ donation system. Although progress has been made, several ethical and legal issues associated with transplantation in China remain, including the use of organs from executed prisoners, organ scarcity, the illegal organ trade, and transplantation tourism. In this Health Policy article we outline the standards used to define cardiac death in China and a legal and procedural framework for an organ donation system based on voluntary donation after cardiac death that adheres to both China's social and cultural principles and international transplantation standards., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Despite the Transplantation of Human Organ Act passed in Indian Parliament in 1994, cadaver liver and/or kidney transplant are infrequently performed (in a few private hospitals) in our country compared to living donor liver or kidney transplant. The need for performing more cadaver liver and/or kidney transplants in private and public hospitals is obvious. Immediate measures which should be taken to facilitate more cadaver organ transplant both in private and public hospitals are suggested. Organ donation is for an individual or a family an invaluable opportunity, to register victory after death.

Follow-up care for living organ donors is inadequate in countries with advanced transplantation systems based on altruistic donation. In cases where financial incentives drive an organ donation, care for the live 'donor' is largely absent. Care must be provided not only to living altruistic organ donors but especially to victims of organ trafficking who are often not suitable candidates for a donation and subject to poor surgical practices and conditions. Such follow-up is essential not only as a basic right, but also as an important reconciliatory step to regain public trust in transplants where they have been characterized by commercialism. Yet, the question, who will provide care for the commercial living donor? persists. In the absence of public or private commitments to this care, the Coalition for Organ-Failure Solutions (COFS) conducts outreach programmes that include identifying victims of organ trafficking, assessing their consequences and arranging support services. This paper presents studies on consequences for commercial living donors (CLDs), describes the case of organ trafficking and COFS' care provision in Egypt and discusses why follow-up care for CLDs is not an appropriate ingredient for advancing regulation proposals but should be considered an essential component of the movement to end organ trafficking., (© 2010 The Authors. Transplant International © 2010 European Society for Organ Transplantation.)

The revised Organ Transplant Law in Japan that took effect in July 2010 allows organ procurement from brain-dead individuals, including children, only with family consent. The amended law also allows individuals to prioritize family members to receive their donated organs after death. This policy differs from the prioritization policy in Israel, which provides incentives to individuals who agree to help each other in society and rectifies the problem of free riders, individuals who are willing to accept an organ but refuse to donate. Despite these differences, however, the Japanese and Israeli policies have revealed new ethical dilemmas, including the fear of compromising fairness in organ allocation.

Purpose of Review: To summarize recent practices and views regarding children as living organ donors in the USA., Recent Findings: Living donors have become an increasingly important source of organs for transplantation. Concern for the rights of donors has resulted in reconsideration of the use of minors as living organ donors. Most commentators have voiced concerns that minors deserve extraordinary protection, but are unwilling to ban the practice of living donation by minors outright. Instead, factors to be considered in individual situations have been enumerated, and safeguards recommended. These same safeguards have also been recommended to be extended to adults, as attainment of legal age does not in itself confer immunity from exploitation. Developmental factors of importance include brain maturation affecting decision making, executive function and impulse control; the dependent status of minors, usually on the persons who may most want them to be donors; youthful idealism and sense of invulnerability; and incomplete identity formation., Summary: Fewer children in the USA have become living donors in the past decade. Preadolescent children in particular should probably be considered as potential donors only in extraordinary circumstances. Safeguards protect not only children, but transplant physicians, programs and the image of the transplant endeavor.

Live donors are a continuing source of organ grafts for solid organ transplantation in Asia. Ethical issues surrounding the development of living donor organ transplantation in Eastern countries are different from those in Western countries. Donor safety is still the paramount concern in any donor operation. Issues on organ trafficking remain societal concerns in low-income nations. Religion, cultural background, economic prerogatives, and timely legislation contribute to the social acceptance and maturation of organ donation.

This is a translation into Spanish, done by Mario Uribe, M.D., F.A.C.S., and authorized by the Conference Organization, of the official statements signed by The Transplantation Society, The International Society of Nephrology and the representatives who participated at a WHO sponsored Conference held in Istambul, Turkey, April 30 to May 2, 2008.

Purpose of Review: The number of organs available for the patients on the transplant waitlist remains at a disproportionate low. All possible methods to curtail this shortage, including providing donors with incentives, have been proposed. This article reviews recent publications addressing the benefits and risks involved in incentivizing living donation., Recent Findings: The debate about the ethics, feasibility, and possible models for compensating organ donors has been prominent in recent literature. As certain countries take lead on this initiative, others are cautiously weighing in on the impact implementations of such policies may have on the society, especially on the underprivileged., Summary: The shortage of organs has resulted in proposal of strategies that encroach on certain moral and ethical principles. Providing incentives to donors is one such strategy that is likely to receive a lot of attention in the next few years.

Purpose of Review: 'Global transplant commercialism' (practices and policies involving international trade in organs from living vendors, e.g., 'transplant tourism') is currently subjected to unprecedented criticism. In parallel, the debate around 'local transplant commercialism' (practices and policies that confine trade in organs from living vendors to national markets or economic unions) is heating up. In an attempt to assess the potential outcomes of these trends, this article reviews and discusses some sociological and ethical issues, ending with a proposal for a reinvigorated anticommercialist strategy., Recent Findings: The current international campaign against global transplant commercialism is conducted by an ad hoc alliance between strange bedfellows, proponents of local transplant commercialism on the one hand and opponents of any transplant commercialism on the other. Disparities in the rigor of the respective ethical discourses, the expanding list of precedents of legitimized commerce in the human body, and the political economy of transplantation, all suggest that the former have the upper hand., Summary: Recent achievements in the struggle against international organ trafficking may not herald the abolition of transplant commercialism but rather presage its reconfiguration in deglobalized forms. In light of such a prospect, those who wish to prevent the pervasive commodification of the human body from entering the gates of transplant medicine should consider devising a new, perhaps more radical, strategy.

Purpose of Review: To consider proposals to use financial incentives for organ donors that have become a subject of intense controversy in both lay and medical press (in contradistinction to the removal of financial disincentives, which is essentially noncontroversial although typically not practiced)., Recent Findings: In a concerned response to the shortage of organs the office of Senator Specter of Pennsylvania has been the source of a proposal to amend the 1984 United States National Organ Transplant Act, which has been interpreted to prohibit such incentives. The proposal would permit various forms of financial incentives for donation to no longer be prohibited., Summary: The amendment would have unintentional negative consequences that could undermine, rather than strengthen, the national and international organ transplant endeavor. These concerns are considered in my personal correspondence to Senator Specter's office on which the text is based.

Living organ donation is a medically established and morally acceptable method of transplantation. According to German Transplantation Law, an expert review by a local "Commission on Living Donation" (Lebendspendekommission, LSK) is required before transplantation. The legal task of this review is to ensure a voluntary decision by the donor and to rule out illegal trading of organs. Results from a national survey among all LSKs show that the process of review and assessment varies considerably among German LSKs. Most of them carry out a compulsory hearing of every potential donor, but this is omitted by some LSKs in a number of cases. Only 60% of all LSKs feel confident to determine donors' free will and protect their self-determination. Only 33% claim to be able to recognise illegal trading of organs. The LSKs even disagree on the exact borderline between legal incentives and illegal commerce. An expansion of living donation by financial incentives, pool-donation or crossover donation is supported only by a minority of German LSKs. The article argues in favour of establishing national standards for the process of LSK-reviews in order to foster procedural ethics and trustworthiness in the field of living organ donation.

Strategies to expand the pool of solid organs for transplantation have had only limited success. Waiting times exceeding 5 years and/or waiting mortality are not uncommon. A system of financial rewards for living and deceased organ donation is proposed. The reward program would be administered by the federal government. Donors or beneficiaries would receive a fixed financial reward, similar to the payout of an insurance policy, from a federal agency. Such a system would be consistent with similar financial rewards given in our society to recognize instances of personal self-sacrifice and risk taking performed for the benefit of others.

As a result of the increasing use of live organ donors, international conferences have been held in Amsterdam and Vancouver to address the transplant community's concern for the well-being of such donors. Congress has considered arguments to permit a regulated market of organ sales but has rejected such a proposal, in part because of a fundamental ethical principle: selling one's kidney or any other part of one's body violates the dignity of the human person. The "system failure" is not only at the doorstep of organ donation. The expansion of the waiting list for kidney transplants is heavily composed of the elderly who could have benefited by preventive medical care.

The lack of cadaver donors and the high requirements for organs cannot be met by present sources, leading to the need for xenoorgans or stem cell-derived tissues/organs. Actually, despite experimental suggestions, scientific and ethical doubts have been raised by both the scientific community and international organizations (World Health Organization, 1998; European Council of Parliamentary Assembly, 1999). Thus, to balance the shortage of organs, laws allowing living organ donations have been issued in several countries, including Italy, where there is an increasingly favorable attention to organ transplantation from living donors. Because of the prohibition of body commercialization issued by the Oviedo Convention (1997), the bioethics and legal debate as well as issued laws concern 2 major closely related aspects: the health-defense of the donor who accepts a decreased well-being and the counterbalanced possibility of an economic advantage/indemnity.

We perform an ethical evaluation of two models that promise to solve the increasing shortage of organs for transplantations: firstly, the legalization of organ trade, and, secondly, the so called "Reciprocity Model". Thereby unrestricted respect for the individual human being serves as the ethical standard. We conclude that the Reciprocity Model is ethically much more acceptable that organ trade even if this trade were limited to Europe. In addition, the Reciprocity Model can easily be integrated into the current Eurotransplant system of organ allocation.

Objectives: Renewed interest in living donor transplantation in France led us to survey French transplanters to determine their opinion concerning this technique and the ethical issues involved. Their concerns and suggestions about current legislation were examined., Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was sent to physicians working in the different kidney, liver and lung transplantation units operating in France., Results: French transplanters expressed a wide range of opinions concerning living donor transplantation and possible broadening of the current regulations. Sixty-two percent of the transplanters had a positive opinion on living donor transplantation compared with 22% who expressed a negative opinion. For 23% of the transplanters, it is preferable to transplant with a living donor graft compared with 64% who preferred cadaveric grafts. A living donor transplantation program is under study in 65% of the units. There is some debate concerning the legitimate nature of the emergency donation situation for spouses. About one-half of the transplanters were in favor of controlled extension of potential donors to second degree relatives and to the recipient's spouse or living partner., Conclusion: There is no real consensus among French transplanters concerning living donor transplantation due to the complexity of the ethical issues involved. Their opinions reflect medical tradition with background marked by autonomy and paternalism. This leads to a wide range of opinions concerning current bioethics legislation and the usefulness of more flexible laws.

Case Scenario: Alice is now 12 years old and has been receiving dialysis for over 3 years. Her long-term chance of survival depends upon a kidney transplant and she has been on a waiting list for several years. Her condition is deteriorating and Bob, a close friend of her family, has offered to donate her a kidney. What is the law?

Although organ transplantation following brain death has progressed in the West, it has lagged far behind in Japan, following the first such case in 1968. As effective immunosuppressants made transplantation a better option, Japanese patients increasingly sought treatment overseas. Japanese physician groups studied issues related to transplantation but did not succeed in making brain-dead donor transplants available to patients, and the matter was referred to the government. However, transplant medicine was still marked by controversy, and as political pressure was applied the controversy deepened, splintering public opinion. At the same time, transplant groups continued working to establish structures to allow transplantation to proceed. Public awareness and knowledge of brain death grew, and acceptance widened. Eventually, legislation was passed in June 1997 that allowed organ donations from some brain-dead donors. The law is restrictive, and such organ transplants in Japan are still limited.

Living related donors are an increasing source of organs for transplantation. Although the use of this type of donation is widespread in the United States, the practice of placing donors at risk for injury or illness without physical benefit can create ethical dilemmas for health professionals dedicated to healing and avoiding harm. It is important for transplantation professionals to be familiar with the risks and benefits associated with living donation within their own specialty area. Placing living donation within an ethical framework can allow for careful consideration and guide decision making in each individual case. Drawing upon the literature for examples from several of the transplantation specialty areas, this article reviews some of the risks and benefits associated with living donation and identifies the limits of the utilitarian and casuistic ethical framework in guiding decision making in living donation. An ethical framework of virtue-principlism is offered as one which is grounded in an understanding of what it is to be human and in the nature of the health professional-patient relationship.

The mother of an Egyptian friend of the author is admitted to Asyut University Hospital after breaking her hip. A number of direct relatives spend the night in her hospital room and discuss the situation with the surgeon the next day. They are subsequently sent out to buy an artificial joint, and to bring the fee for the operation. The 2000 Egyptian Pounds which is claimed for this is later, during the operation, increased by 500 Egyptian Pounds, equivalent to about 150 US dollars. This is relatively cheap compared with the kidney transplant of another relative, which amounted to 40,000 Egyptian Pounds. Most of this money was used to pay the donor, since Egyptian law only allows the transplantation of organs from living donors.

From the perspective of the German legal system it is clear that the donation of organs by living donors should be the exception, but cadaver donors the rule. Nevertheless, the legislature has deemed it necessary to regulate the organ donation of living donors. Without a great lot of political debate requirements have been established for these donors and criminal provisions created prohibiting the dealing with human organs. This paper will first address the question on how the current legislation came about and whether a statutory rule was even necessary. An in-depth analysis of the statute will follow in which open questions and ambiguities of the text will be explained.