Prisoners as Organ Donors: Is It Worth the Effort? Is It Ethical?

Millis, M Andrew; Simmerling, Mary

doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2008.11.005

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…51 , 52 Special groups such as prisoners have unique considerations. 80 Interviewing the donor candidate without the intended recipient, family members and other persons who could influence the donation decision is important in the assessment of voluntarism. Trust is maintained when the transplant program assures a donor candidate that their participation in evaluation and personal health information is confidential, to be shared with the intended recipient only with their approval.…”

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a “proof-in-concept” risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1–S109.

show abstract

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Millis and Simmerling argue that most prisoners have the decisional capacity to serve as living donors because they otherwise would not have been allowed to stand trial. 45 They also note that prisoners can consent to being an organ recipient.…”

Section: Cognitive Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Prisoners as Living Donors: A Vulnerabilities Analysis

Ross¹,

Thistlethwaite²

2017

Camb Q Healthc Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although national guidelines exist for evaluating the eligibility of potential living donors and for procuring their informed consent, no special protections or considerations exist for potential living donors who are incarcerated. Human research subject protections in the United States are codified in the Federal Regulations, 45 CFR 46, and special protections are given to prisoners. Living donor transplantation has parallels with human subject research in that both activities are performed with the primary goal of benefiting third parties. In this article, we describe what special considerations should be provided to prisoners as potential living donors using a vulnerabilities approach adapted from the human research subject protection literature.

show abstract

“…Then repeat NAT testing 1 week before donation. 36 This process should diminish the risk from incarcerated donors.…”

Section: Prisoner Donorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanded Criteria Living Donors: How Far Can We Go?

Serur

Charlton

2012

Prog Transpl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an effort to expand the deceased donor pool, transplant centers have accepted expanded criteria donors as appropriate for many of the patients in the deceased donor pool. Translating this into the living donor pool is more complex. One must consider not only the quality of the organ procured but the consequences that the nephrectomy might have on the living donors for the rest of their lives. This review examines the available data on higher risk donors and the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of accepting them as kidney donors.

show abstract

Prisoners as Organ Donors: Is It Worth the Effort? Is It Ethical?

Cited by 5 publications

References 1 publication

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

Prisoners as Living Donors: A Vulnerabilities Analysis

Expanded Criteria Living Donors: How Far Can We Go?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About