Explore the vast range of titles available.

Since the first living-donor kidney transplantation in 1954, more than half a million living kidney donations have occurred and research has advanced knowledge about long-term donor outcomes. Donors in developed countries have a similar life expectancy and quality of life as healthy non-donors. Living kidney donation is associated with an increased risk of end-stage renal disease, although this outcome is uncommon (<0·5% increase in incidence at 15 years). Kidney donation seems to elevate the risks of gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia. Many donors incur financial expenses due to factors such as lost wages, need for sick days, and travel expenses. Yet, most donors have no regrets about donation. Living kidney donation is practised ethically when informed consent incorporates information about risks, uncertainty about outcomes is acknowledged when it exists, and a donor's risks are proportional to benefits for the donor and recipient. Future research should determine whether outcomes are similar for donors from developing countries and donors with pre-existing conditions such as obesity.

In Canada, organ donation from deceased donors is a common practice that saves or improves the lives of more than nearly 2000 Canadians every year, accounting for more than 3 of 4 of all transplanted organs. Deceased donation is permitted after either neurologic or circulatory determination of death, with the latter accounting for 25% of all organs donated in Canada in 2017.1 The current Canadian guideline recommendations for donation after circulatory determination of death, published in 2006, address the conventional scenario of an unconscious, incapable, critically ill patient not expected to survive the withdrawal of life-sustaining measures. The target audience of this guidance consists of clinicians, organ donation organizations, end-of-life care experts, medical assistance in dying providers and policy-makers. This document is intended to inform policies related to offering organ and tissue donation to patients who have made a decision that will lead to imminent death.

In this article, we perform a thought experiment about living donor kidney transplantation. If a living kidney donor becomes in need of renal replacement treatment due to dysfunction of the remaining kidney after donation, can the donor ask the recipient to give back the kidney that had been donated? We call this problem organ restitution and discussed it from the ethical viewpoint. Living organ transplantation is a kind of ‘designated donation’ and subsequently has a contract-like character. First, assuming a case in which original donor (A) wishes the return of the organ which had been transplanted into B, and the original recipient (B) agrees, organ restitution will be permissible based on contract-like agreement. However, careful and detailed consideration is necessary to determine whether this leaves no room to question the authenticity of B’s consent. Second, if B offers to give back the organ to A, then B’s act is a supererogatory act, and is praiseworthy and meritorious. Such an offer is a matter of virtue, not obligation. Third, if A wishes B to return the organ, but B does not wish/allow this to happen, it is likely difficult to justify returning the organ to A by violating B’s right to bodily integrity. But B’s refusal to return the donated organ cannot be deemed praiseworthy, because B forgets the great kindness once received from A. Rather than calling this an obligation, we encourage B to consider such virtuous conduct.

With a clear understanding of his terminal prognosis, W.B. wanted to donate his organs before he died — but the legal and ethical hurdles proved insurmountable. In Canada, where medical assistance in dying is now legal, some patients are able to fulfill this last wish.

In a recent article, Albertsen both elaborates the best option argument for regulated markets and levels a justice-based objection to kidney sales. In the present article, I show that Albertsen has crucially misunderstood the best option argument. It is not a defence of kidney sales, as Albertsen claims. It is a reply to an objection. The objection, perennial in the debate, opposes kidney sales on the grounds that sellers would be harmed. The best option argument—proving that prohibitions tend to set back the interests of those denied their preferred option—shows this thinking to be confused. If sound, the best option argument dramatically undercuts any attempt to oppose a market citing would-be sellers’ interests.

Background There is limited information on the ethical issues encountered in living donor organ transplants performed on refugees and asylum seekers. This study investigates the ethical challenges faced by Syrian refugees under temporary protection in Türkiye who engage in living donor organ transplants. Methods From April to July 2022 in Istanbul, the research employed a qualitative design involving semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 27 participants, including organ donors and recipients. The analysis utilized a thematic analytic method. Results The findings elucidate two principal themes related to ethical concerns: justice and autonomy. Under the justice theme, several sub-themes emerged, highlighting the multifaceted challenges Syrian refugees face in accessing healthcare services. These include migration and language barriers, significantly impeding their ability to understand medical procedures and rights. Financial difficulties and restricted movement within the country further complicate their access to necessary healthcare. Despite these hurdles, refugees benefit from free access to organ transplantation services and medications, a policy underscoring Türkiye’s commitment to healthcare equity for protected populations. The autonomy theme addresses the ethical handling of donor consent and motivation. The results indicate that Syrian refugees undergo a transplantation process free from coercion, with rigorous oversight by organ transplant ethics committees ensuring the prevention of donor abuse. However, despite these protective measures, challenges persist in the informed consent process, primarily due to language barriers that hinder effective communication between healthcare providers and patients. While the efforts of healthcare professionals to assist are recognized as alleviating some difficulties, the broader issues of access to comprehensive health services remain a significant concern. These barriers suggest a need for enhanced linguistic and financial support to improve healthcare accessibility for refugees. Conclusions This study posits that the healthcare framework provided by Türkiye to Syrians under temporary protection can serve as a model for international human rights and social justice. However, it also emphasizes the importance of addressing the persistent obstacles that limit healthcare access for asylum seekers. Recommendations for policy enhancements focus on improving language services, increasing financial support, and expanding the accessibility of comprehensive health services to ensure equitable health outcomes for refugees.

We evaluate the introduction of monetary incentives in the market for live and cadaveric organ donations. We show that monetary incentives would increase the supply of organs for transplant sufficiently to eliminate the very large queues in organ markets, and the suffering and deaths of many of those waiting, without increasing the total cost of transplant surgery by more than about 12 percent. We build on the value-of-life literature and other parts of economic analysis to estimate the equilibrium cost of live transplants for kidneys and livers. We also show that market price for kidneys will be determined by the cost of live donations, even though most organs will come from cadavers.

Commentators are concerned that broad consent may not provide biospecimen donors with sufficient information regarding possible future research uses of their tissue. We surveyed with interviews 302 cancer patients who had recently provided broad consent at four diverse academic medical centers. The majority of donors believed that the consent form provided them with sufficient information regarding future possible uses of their biospecimens. Donors expressed very positive views regarding tissue donation in general and endorsed the use of their biospecimens in future research across a wide range of contexts. Concerns regarding future uses were limited to for-profit research and research by investigators in other countries. These results support the use of broad consent to store and use biological samples in future research.

A prominent defence of a market in organs from living donors says that if we truly care about people in poverty, we should allow them to sell their organs. The argument is that if poor vendors would have voluntarily decided to sell their organs in a free market, then prohibiting them from selling makes them even worse off, at least from their own perspective, and that it would be unconscionably paternalistic to substitute our judgements for individuals' own judgements about what would be best for them. The author shows that this ‘Laissez-Choisir Argument’ for organ selling rests on a mistake. This is because the claim that it would be better for people in poverty to sell their organs if given the option is consistent with the claim that it would be even better for them to not have the option at all. The upshot is that objections to an organ market need not be at all paternalistic, since we need not accept that the absence of a market makes those in poverty any worse off, even from their own point of view. The author goes on to argue that there are strong theoretical and empirical reasons for believing that people in poverty would in fact be harmed by the introduction of a market for live donor organs and that the harm constitutes sufficient grounds for prohibiting a market.