Raising awareness of unspecified living kidney donation: an ELPAT view.

BACKGROUND: Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the preferred treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease and unspecified living kidney donation is morally justified. Despite the excellent outcomes of LDKT, unspecified kidney donation (UKD) is limited to a minority of European countries due to legal constraints and moral objections. Consequently, there are significant variations in practice and approach between countries and the contribution of UKD is undervalued. Where UKD is accepted as routine, an increasing number of patients in the kidney exchange programme are successfully transplanted when a 'chain' of transplants is triggered by a single unspecified donor. By expanding the shared living donor pool, the benefit of LDKT is extended to patients who do not have their own living donor because a recipient on the national transplant list always completes the chain. Is there a moral imperative to increase the scope of UKD and how could this be achieved? METHODS: An examination of the literature and individual country practices was performed to identify the limitations on UKD in Europe and recommend strategies to increase transplant opportunities. RESULTS: Primary limitations to UKD, key players and their roles and responsibilities were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Raising awareness to encourage the public to volunteer to donate is appropriate and desirable to increase UKD. Recommendations are made to provide a framework for increasing awareness and engagement in UKD. The public, healthcare professionals, policy makers and society and religious leaders have a role to play in creating an environment for change.

"What if this is my chance to save my life?" A semistructured interview study on the motives and experiences of end-stage renal disease patients who engaged in public solicitation of a living kidney donor.

The increase in patients using public solicitation (PS) to find a living kidney donor has generated a debate about the ethical complexities of PS. To investigate why patients engaged in PS and what they experienced during PS, we conducted semistructured interviews with 20 Dutch patients with end-stage renal disease who had publicly solicited a living donor. Transcripts were thematically analyzed. We identified ten themes on patients' considerations preceding PS: cautiousness in discussing living donation within social network; reluctance to accept a kidney from loved ones; rejection/withdrawal of related donor candidates; moral objections to paid donation; the ease of social media; encouraged by others; ends justifying the means; despair and urge to take action; public disclosure of vulnerability; fear of being (perceived to be) selfish. We identified nine themes on patients' experiences: positive emotions and support generated by action; genuine and ulterior motives for donation; patients acting as educators and screeners; time- and energy-consuming process; emotionally taxing process; positive interactions with donor candidates; feeling of dependency and obligation; limited cooperation from health professionals; demands a proactive attitude and media strategy. These results can inform and complement (existing) policies on PS and provide content for education of patients who are considering PS.

Donor and Recipient Perspectives on Anonymity in Kidney Donation From Live Donors: A Multicenter Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining anonymity is a requirement in the Netherlands and Sweden for kidney donation from live donors in the context of nondirected (or unspecified) and paired exchange (or specified indirect) donation. Despite this policy, some donors and recipients express the desire to know one another. Little empirical evidence informs the debate on anonymity. This study explored the experiences, preferences, and attitudes of donors and recipients toward anonymity. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational multicenter study using both qualitative and quantitative methods. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 414 participants from Dutch and Swedish transplantation centers who received or donated a kidney anonymously (nondirected or paired exchange) completed a questionnaire about anonymity. Participation was a median of 31 months after surgery. FACTORS: Country of residence, donor/recipient status, transplant type, time since surgery. OUTCOMES: Experiences, preferences, and attitudes toward anonymity. RESULTS: Most participants were satisfied with their experience of anonymity before and after surgery. A minority would have liked to have met the other party before (donors, 7%; recipients, 15%) or after (donors, 22%; recipients, 31%) surgery. Significantly more recipients than donors wanted to meet the other party. Most study participants were open to meeting the other party if the desire was mutual (donors, 58%; recipients, 60%). Donors agree significantly more with the principle of anonymity before and after surgery than recipients. Donors and recipients thought that if both parties agreed, it should be permissible to meet before or after surgery. There were few associations between country or time since surgery and experiences or attitudes. The pros and cons of anonymity reported by participants were clustered into relational and emotional, ethical, and practical and logistical domains. LIMITATIONS: The relatively low response rate of recipients may have reduced generalizability. Recall bias was possible given the time lag between transplantation and data collection. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study illustrated that although donors and recipients were usually satisfied with anonymity, the majority viewed a strict policy on anonymity as unnecessary. These results may inform policy and education on anonymity.

Toward a conditional approach to anonymity? An explorative multicenter longitudinal study among anonymous living kidney donors and recipients.

Anonymity between living donors and recipients is a topic of discussion among transplant professionals. This longitudinal study explored living kidney donors' and patients' perspectives on anonymity. Prior to surgery (T0) and 3 months afterward (T1), participants in unspecified or specified indirect donation programs completed a questionnaire on their experiences with and attitudes toward anonymity as well as demographic and medical characteristics. Nonparametric tests were used to assess group differences and associations. Participants were content with anonymity at T0 and T1. Fourteen and 23% wanted to meet at T0 and T1, respectively. If the other party expressed the wish to meet, 50% (T0) and 55% (T1) would be willing to meet. Most participants agreed that meeting should be allowed if both parties agree. Attitude toward anonymity did not differ between donors/recipients, nor between T0/T1 and unspecified/specified indirect donation programs. This study showed that most donors and recipients who participated in anonymous donation schemes are in favor of a conditional approach to anonymity. Guidelines on how to revoke anonymity if both parties agree are needed and should include education about pros and cons of (non-) anonymity and a logistical plan on how, when, where, and by whom anonymity should be revoked.