Political challenges to biomedical universalism: kidney failure among Egypt's poor.

Why do patients in need of kidney transplants in Egypt decline offers of kidney donation from their family members out of reluctance to cause them harm? Is it not universally the case that a living donor could live in complete health with a single remaining kidney? To address this conundrum, I discuss a case study from Egypt, in which patients reveal social, political, and environmental stresses on organ function that challenge the presumed universal efficacy and safety of kidney transplantation. I demonstrate that the biomedical position on the tolerable risks posed to the living donor is conditional and premised on particular social and historical contingencies that can be misaligned when applied in other contexts. Drawing on the work of Margaret Lock, I illustrate how analytical contributions of medical anthropologists can shed light on a political and public health impasse about how to legally regulate organ transplantation in Egypt.