Suppr超能文献

小儿心脏移植中的公平分配。支持全国名单的论据。

Equitable distribution in pediatric heart transplantation. Arguments in favor of a national list.

作者信息

Leonhardt D E, Botkin J R, Shaddy R E

机构信息

Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City.

出版信息

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1994 Mar;148(3):316-20. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1994.02170030086019.

Abstract

The disparity between the supply and demand for pediatric donor hearts remains the major constraint in pediatric heart transplantation. This disparity draws attention to the importance of an equitable distribution policy for pediatric hearts. An examination of the policy on pediatric heart distribution shows that although a governmental task force recommended that these organs be allocated according to a national list, the current policy, developed by the United Network of Organ Sharing, emphasizes the local distribution of pediatric hearts. The decision to allocate organs locally was based on both theoretical and practical concerns about national distribution. In analyzing these concerns, we conclude not only that a national list may be a more equitable means of distribution but also that the arguments against a national list no longer justify a policy favoring local distribution. We suggest, therefore, that the time has come to reconsider implementation of a national list for pediatric heart distribution.

摘要

小儿供体心脏供需之间的差距仍然是小儿心脏移植的主要制约因素。这种差距凸显了小儿心脏公平分配政策的重要性。对小儿心脏分配政策的审视表明,尽管一个政府特别工作组建议根据全国名单分配这些器官,但目前由器官共享联合网络制定的政策强调小儿心脏的本地分配。做出本地分配器官的决定是基于对全国分配的理论和实际考量。在分析这些考量时,我们得出的结论是,全国名单不仅可能是一种更公平的分配方式,而且反对全国名单的论据已不再能为支持本地分配的政策提供正当理由。因此,我们建议,重新考虑实施小儿心脏分配全国名单的时机已经成熟。

相似文献

1
Equitable distribution in pediatric heart transplantation. Arguments in favor of a national list.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1994 Mar;148(3):316-20. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1994.02170030086019.
3
A UNOS perspective on donor liver allocation. United Network for Organ Sharing.
Liver Transpl Surg. 1995 Jan;1(1):47-55; discussion 80-2. doi: 10.1002/lt.500010111.
4
Multiple listing for organ transplantation: autonomy unbounded.
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1992 Mar;2(1):43-59. doi: 10.1353/ken.0.0046.
5
Controversial aspects of the current liver donor allocation system for liver transplantation.
Acad Radiol. 1995 Mar;2(3):244-8. doi: 10.1016/s1076-6332(05)80173-4.
6
Balancing supply and demand: Review of the 2018 donor heart allocation policy.
J Card Surg. 2020 Jul;35(7):1583-1588. doi: 10.1111/jocs.14609. Epub 2020 May 12.
7
New UNOS rules: historical background and implications for transplantation management. United Network for Organ Sharing.
J Heart Lung Transplant. 1999 Nov;18(11):1065-70. doi: 10.1016/s1053-2498(99)00075-3.
8
Changes in United States heart allocation: A community energized to improve policy.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016 Dec;152(6):1484-1486. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.07.077. Epub 2016 Aug 31.
9
Solid organ transplantation. 2: Ethical considerations.
Ann Intern Med. 1999 Jan 19;130(2):169-70. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-130-2-199901190-00101.
10
The heart-allocation simulation model: a tool for comparison of transplantation allocation policies.
Transplantation. 2003 Nov 27;76(10):1492-7. doi: 10.1097/01.TP.0000092005.95047.E9.

引用本文的文献

1
Variations in Criteria and Practices for Heart Transplantation Listing Among Pediatric Transplant Cardiologists.
Pediatr Cardiol. 2019 Jan;40(1):101-109. doi: 10.1007/s00246-018-1965-x. Epub 2018 Aug 18.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验