Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Oct;17(10):2567-2571.
doi: 10.1111/ajt.14319. Epub 2017 May 17.

Considering Tangible Benefit for Interdependent Donors: Extending a Risk-Benefit Framework in Donor Selection

Affiliations

Considering Tangible Benefit for Interdependent Donors: Extending a Risk-Benefit Framework in Donor Selection

S E Van Pilsum Rasmussen et al. Am J Transplant. 2017 Oct.

Abstract

From its infancy, live donor transplantation has operated within a framework of acceptable risk to donors. Such a framework presumes that risks of living donation are experienced by the donor while all benefits are realized by the recipient, creating an inequitable distribution that demands minimization of donor risk. We suggest that this risk-tolerance framework ignores tangible benefits to the donor. A previously proposed framework more fully considers potential benefits to the donor and argues that risks and benefits must be balanced. We expand on this approach, and posit that donors sharing a household with and/or caring for a potential transplant patient may realize tangible benefits that are absent in a more distantly related donation (e.g. cousin, nondirected). We term these donors, whose well-being is closely tied to their recipient, "interdependent donors." A flexible risk-benefit model that combines risk assessment with benefits to interdependent donors will contribute to donor evaluation and selection that more accurately reflects what is at stake for donors. In so doing, a risk-benefit framework may allow some donors to accept greater risk in donation decisions.

Keywords: donors and donation: donor evaluation; donors and donation: living; editorial/personal viewpoint; ethics; ethics and public policy; kidney transplantation/nephrology; liver transplantation/hepatology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

DISCLOSURE

The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation.

References

    1. Grams ME, Sang Y, Levey AS, Matsushita K, Ballew S, Chang AR, et al. Kidney-Failure Risk Projection for the Living Kidney-Donor Candidate. New England Journal of Medicine. 2016;374(5):411–21. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Allen MB, Abt PL, Reese PP. What Are the Harms of Refusing to Allow Living Kidney Donation? An Expanded View of Risks and Benefits. American Journal of Transplantation. 2014;14(3):531–7. - PubMed
    1. Thiessen C, Gordon EJ, Reese PP, Kulkarni S. Development of a Donor-Centered Approach to Risk Assessment: Rebalancing Nonmaleficence and Autonomy. American Journal of Transplantation. 2015;15(9):2314–23. - PubMed
    1. Freedman B. Equipoise and the Ethics of Clinical Research. New England Journal of Medicine. 1987;317(3):141–5. - PubMed
    1. Schafer A. The Ethics of the Randomized Clinical Trial. New England Journal of Medicine. 1982;307(12):719–24. - PubMed