What we still don't know about vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) outcomes and quality of life measurements.

Vascularized composite allotransplants (VCA) are the only organ transplants purported to be conducted principally to improve quality of life (QOL), rather than to extend or save life - hence they are described as "life-enhancing" (or "life-rescuing"). This is in contrast to "life-extending" solid organ transplantation (SOT). Yet despite more than 20 years of VCA practice (1997-present), little is known about the actual "life-enhancing" impact(s) of VCA on the patient or their families. This article presents an overview of the state of the VCA field and what we still don't know about VCA outcomes, specifically focussing on face and hand transplants as both visible, emotional, and communicative organs. The current measurement of QOL in VCA is insufficient, both conceptually and analytically. It is also, critically, conducted without reference to patient-reported outcomes, or the experiences of family and carers. Drawing on published research in VCA and SOT, as well as preliminary, anecdotal VCA patient interview research, this paper highlights how and why the QOL practices in the field of VCA are not fit for purpose and proposes new ways of analysing QOL. In conclusion, it outlines what needs to happen for the VCA field to move forward positively, and with patients and their families more central to VCA practice and research.

How to Help Patients Considering VCA.

Patients who might benefit from some form of vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) can be expected to have prior long-standing relationships with one or more primary care professionals or specialists who are well-positioned to help patients make well-informed decisions about whether and when to pursue VCA. Helping patients decide requires becoming familiar with VCA, its various forms, eligibility criteria, prior and possible outcomes, and potential risks and benefits. This article shares key points for helping patients.

A Call to Accountability: Reporting Outcomes in Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation.

Because nearly all the vascularized composite allotransplants performed in the United States have been proposed and carried out as research, the ethical duty to report outcomes pertains. This duty is set forth in several international statements, including the World Health Organization's Statement on Public Disclosure of Clinical Trial Results, the 2013 Helsinki Declaration, and the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. These international statements call for the reporting of negative and inconclusive outcomes as well as positive outcomes, and for the reporting of results from previously unreported past research. In 2014, the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network vascularized composite allotransplant committee proposed mandatory data collection and submission requirements for transplants, but only for those which took place in September 2015 or later. Reporting of data for the allotransplants which took place before September 2015 was regarded as optional, even though the pre-September 2015 transplants represent the majority of vascularized composite allotransplants in the United States and all the long-term outcome data. We encourage the American Society of Reconstructive Transplantation and the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network committee to embrace the international ethical standards and to hold all vascularized composite allotransplant programs in the United States accountable for reporting data on outcomes of pre-September 2015 transplants.

Make It Plain: Strengthening the Ethical Foundation of First-Person Authorization for Organ Donation.

One response to the chronic shortage of organs for transplant in the United States has been the passage of laws establishing first-person authorization for donation of organs, providing legal grounds for the retrieval of organs and tissues from registered donors, even over the objections of their next of kin. The ethical justification for first-person authorization is that it is a matter of respecting the donor's wishes. The objection of some next of kin may be that the donor would not have wished for his or her loved ones to have their preferences overridden, had they considered that possibility. This article examines the basis of the conflict and suggests a remedy grounded in the provision of donor-intent options that have the ability to clarify the donor's wishes.

The Angry Amish Grandfather: Cultural Competence and Empathy: A Case Commentary.

Crosscultural encounters are common in the delivery of healthcare, and cultural differences may contribute to misunderstandings and ethical conflict. Encounters between members of the Amish ethno-religious group and modern, science-based healthcare providers hold a high potential for misunderstanding and conflict because the Amish stridently maintain a countercultural outlook and they approach such encounters with suspicion and anxiety. This commentary on the case presented by Amy E. Caruso Brown, MD,1 involving a grandfather's resistance to treating a child with leukemia commends this physician for successfully managing the case and deriving important insights from reflection upon it. It argues, however, that the level of conflict most likely would have been reduced if the care team had made more of an effort to listen to the grandfather and acknowledge the emotional trauma he had suffered.