Kidney transplantation is a superior treatment strategy than chronic dialysis for end-stage renal disease patients. However, there is a severe shortage of cadaveric kidneys that are available for transplantation. Therefore many patients are turning to living donors. We describe four models of incentives to improve rates of living kidney donation: the market compensation model, the fixed compensation model, nocompensation model and the expense reimbursement model. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each of these models. Any incentive to improve rates of living kidney donation must be accompanied by safeguards. These safeguards will prevent living donors from being viewed primarily as a resource for transplants. These safeguards will also prevent vulnerable individuals from being coerced into donation and will monitor long-term outcomes of donors using a donor registry. We recommend the use of the expense reimbursement model along with these safeguards, in order to increase rates of living kidney donation.

In December 2002, a conference was held in Philadelphia to discuss public concerns about living organ transplantation with the goal of reaching a consensus about new strategies for such transplants. The conference was hosted by the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and the Center for Bioethics. A multidisciplinary group of leading experts and stakeholders was called to assess the current status of living donation and suggest productive changes to ensure safer and more ethically sound procedures for both donors and recipients. Prior to the meeting, the research team from the University of Pennsylvania, Center for Bioethics, conducted literature reviews and extensive background research on living organ transplantation. Summary briefs were prepared for all conference participants. Issues were divided into four subcategories; two or three experts led the discussion on each topic. At the conclusion of the conference, the points raised were summarized and discussed, and additional comments were offered before general agreement was reached on each subject. Transcribed minutes and summary statements were reviewed and circulated among participants to allow for additional comments and clarification. All feedback was incorporated into the statement, and a draft of the article was recirculated. Participants who have endorsed the following statements have agreed that these points represent the intent and spirit of the discussion, yet each participant reserves the right to disclaim the document in its entirety. The views represented in the consensus points are held by members of the consensus group and do not necessarily represent the views of the sponsor. A consensus was reached to propose new strategies and make improvements on existing practices and protocols. Specific attention was paid to the widely accepted needs of consistent and responsible communication with the public and press, standardization in donor assessment, a national living donor registry and new research focusing on larger sample numbers and long-term donor follow-up. These consensus points support the work carried out by other advisory transplant organizations and should assist in advocating for living organ donors, the live donor transplant process and the concerns of the public.

No abstract

The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) waiting list was designed as a just and equitable system through which the limited number of organs is allocated to the millions of Americans in need of a transplant. People have trusted the system because of the belief that everyone on the list has an equal opportunity to receive an organ and also that allocation is blind to matters of financial standing, celebrity or political power. Recent events have revealed that certain practices and policies have the potential to be exploited. The policies addressed in this paper enable those on the list with the proper resources to gain an advantage over other less fortunate members, creating a system that benefits not the individual most in medical need, but the one with the best resources. These policies are not only unethical but threaten the balance and success of the entire UNOS system. This paper proposes one possible solution, which seeks to balance the concepts of justice and utility.

No abstract

No abstract

It is essential that anyone involved in research involving human subjects be familiar with the purpose and role of institutional review boards. Institutional review boards are designed, first and foremost, to protect human research subjects by overseeing the implementation of federal regulations regarding protection of human subjects. The federal government requires institutional review board approval for any human subject research that receives federal funding, and many scholarly journals require proof of institutional review board approval of the research before publication. In this article, the answers to 10 frequently asked questions about the role of institutional review boards highlight the important contributions made by institutional review boards to the conduct of ethically sound research. The aim is to generate a working knowledge of the institutional review board's function that can be used by every researcher contemplating working with human research subjects. This is the first in a series of 3 articles examining common issues in research ethics.

No abstract