Armitage Richard C
School of Medicine, Academic Unit of Population and Lifespan Sciences, Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Hospital Campus, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2025 Mar;31(2):e70055. doi: 10.1111/jep.70055.
Currently, recruitment of non-directed altruistic (NDA) kidney and liver lobe donors in the UK regards these individuals as potential NDA donors of the particular organ type they initially express an interest in donating. Conceptualising these individuals instead as potential NDA donors of either a kidney or a liver lobe would require them to be counselled on both kidney donation and liver lobe donation. This can be referred to as 'alternate choice organ counselling'.
This paper conducts an ethical analysis of alternate choice organ counselling using the ethical framework of Principlism, and suggests changes to current policy and practice, accordingly.
This paper finds multiple strong ethical reasons to carry out alternate choice organ counselling for potential NDA donors of kidneys or liver lobes: the duty to respect autonomy requires alternate choice organ counselling such that the potential donor's decision to become a NDA donor of a particular organ type is fully informed; the duty of non-maleficence requires alternate choice organ counselling such that the harm subjected to the donor through living donation can be minimised (although such counselling might generate serial NDA donors, which would expose them to greater total harm); the asymmetry in the degree to which the living kidney and living liver lobe donation mechanisms promote justice requires alternate choice organ counselling for potential donors who wish to maximise the utility of their single NDA donation; finally, alternate choice organ counselling is likely to promote beneficence in potential NDA donors.
This paper finds ethical reasons for potential NDA donors to be conceptualised as potential NDA donors of either a kidney or liver lobe, and for these individuals to be provided with alternate choice organ counselling. Suggestions on how this might be delivered in practice are offered, and the necessary further quantitative and qualitative research outlined.
目前,英国非定向利他性(NDA)肾脏和肝叶捐赠者的招募工作将这些人视为他们最初表示有捐赠意愿的特定器官类型的潜在NDA捐赠者。相反,将这些人视为肾脏或肝叶的潜在NDA捐赠者,则需要就肾脏捐赠和肝叶捐赠对他们进行咨询。这可称为“替代选择器官咨询”。
本文使用原则主义的伦理框架对替代选择器官咨询进行伦理分析,并据此提出对当前政策和实践的改进建议。
本文发现了多个强有力的伦理理由,支持对潜在的肾脏或肝叶NDA捐赠者进行替代选择器官咨询:尊重自主权的义务要求进行替代选择器官咨询,以便潜在捐赠者成为特定器官类型的NDA捐赠者的决定是充分知情的;不伤害的义务要求进行替代选择器官咨询,以便将活体捐赠给捐赠者带来的伤害降至最低(尽管这种咨询可能会产生连续的NDA捐赠者,这会使他们遭受更大的总体伤害);活体肾脏和活体肝叶捐赠机制在促进公平方面的程度不对称,要求对希望最大限度提高其单次NDA捐赠效用的潜在捐赠者进行替代选择器官咨询;最后,替代选择器官咨询可能会促进潜在NDA捐赠者的善举。
本文找到了将潜在NDA捐赠者视为肾脏或肝叶的潜在NDA捐赠者并为这些人提供替代选择器官咨询的伦理理由。文中还提供了关于如何在实践中进行这种咨询的建议,并概述了必要的进一步定量和定性研究。