Summary In Europe, living organ donation (LOD) is increasingly accepted as a valuable solution to overcome the organ shortage. However, considerable differences exist between European countries regarding frequency, practices and acceptance of donor–recipient relations. As a response, the Coordination Action project ‘Living Organ Donation in Europe’ (http://www.eulod.eu), funded by the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Commission, was initiated. Transplant professionals from 331 European kidney and liver transplant centres were invited to complete an online survey on living kidney donation (LKD) and living liver donation (LLD). In total, 113 kidney transplant centres from 40 countries and 39 liver transplant centres from 24 countries responded. 96.5% and 71.8% performed LKD and LLD respectively. The content of the medical screening of donors was similar, but criteria for donor acceptance varied. Few absolute contraindications for donation existed. The reimbursement policies diverged and the majority of the donors did not get reimbursed for their income loss during recovery. Large discrepancies were found between geographical European regions (the Eastern, the Mediterranean and the North‐Western). As a result of this survey we suggest several recommendations to improve quality and safety of LOD in Europe.

In: Transplantation (in press, to be published 2011)To refer to or to cite this work, please use the citation to the published version: Dor, F.; Massey, E.; Frunza, M.; Johnson, R.; Lennerling, A.; Lovén, C.; Mamode, N.; Pascalev, A.; Sterckx, S.; Van

Anonymity of donors or recipients in living-donor transplantation is a complex issue and practice varies widely. There are compelling arguments for maintaining anonymity of both parties before unspecified donor transplantation and specified indirect transplantation. After transplantation, there are still good reasons to avoid disclosure of identities. Although anonymity could be lifted if both parties explicitly request it, there are significant, potentially negative consequences of such an approach. Both donor and recipient should be counseled regarding these, and transplant teams should consider the considerable financial and psychosocial costs if problems are encountered as a result of contact. Given the recent rise in the number of unspecified living-donor transplants and through paired exchange schemes, it is vital that data are collected regarding the effects of maintaining or revoking anonymity after transplantation.

This study emphasizes the importance of organizing the care of PODs and their relatives in a way that promotes advocacy.

The main issue is that one donates irrespective of what one donates. The relationship to the recipient determines the motives for donation. The deeper insight into the donors' experiences provides implications for their psychological care.