Cheryl L Jacobs | PubMed Health

PubMed2004

Twenty-two nondirected kidney donors: an update on a single center's experience.

At the University of Minnesota, we have defined 'nondirected donation' as organ donation by a volunteer who offered to donate an organ to anyone on the cadaver waiting list. From October 1, 1997, through October 31, 2003, we have had 360 inquiries about nondirected donation, have completed 42 detailed nondirected donor (NDD) evaluations for kidney donation, and have performed 22 NDD transplants. We herein review our program policies and how they have evolved, describe our evaluation and the motivation of our potential donors, summarize the outcome of NDD transplants, and raise issues requiring further attention and study. Our experience continues to support nondirected donation for kidney transplants.

Academic Medical Centers↗

PubMed2003

Evolution of a nondirected kidney donor program: lessons learned.

From October 1, 1997 through November 30, 2003, the University of Minnesota received 362 inquiries from potential NDDs. Of these, 53 (15%) then underwent partial or full donor evaluation at our transplant center. Of these 53 potential NDDs, 24 have been accepted (23 donated, and one donation is pending), 23 were denied (15 for medical reasons, 8 for psychosocial reasons), and 6 chose not to pursue donation. Most of our potential NDDs were motivated by altruistic reasons. Their decision-making process was not impulsive or instantaneous, but rather rational and deliberate. They were self-educated about donation before contacting our transplant center. After donation, all 23 of our NDDs said they were glad they donated and were grateful for the opportunity to help another. Many desired to become involved in the transplant community by promoting donation. All NDDs who heard from their recipient appreciated the contact and the chance to learn how the recipient was doing posttransplant. An NDD program clearly mandates a dedicated donor team and additional time and resources, given the high number of inherent practical, logistical, and ethical issues. Our protocol has been a work in progress and continues to evolve with our ever-growing experience. Transplant centers interested in using NDDs must develop NDD protocols to address specific issues and must examine their available staffing and resources.

Academic Medical Centers↗

PubMed2002

The nondirected live-kidney donor: ethical considerations and practice guidelines: A National Conference Report.

BACKGROUND: The success of kidney transplantation from a genetically unrelated living spouse or friend has influenced transplant physicians to consider the requests of individuals wishing to volunteer to be a kidney donor who have no intended recipient specified. Representatives of the transplant community gathered in Boston, MA, on May 31, 2001, to deliberate on the experience of live kidney donation from such volunteers, currently termed nondirected donors (NDD). OBJECTIVE OF CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS: The objective of the conference was to recommend ethical and practice guidelines for health care professionals considering the transplantation of a kidney from a live NDD. CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS: This conference was convened under the sponsorship of The National Kidney Foundation, with representation from The American Society of Transplantation and The American Society of Transplant Surgeons, The American Society of Nephrology, The United Resource Networks, The United Network for Organ Sharing, The Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, The National Institutes of Health, and The Division of Transplantation of the Health Resources and Services Administration (see Appendix). CONFERENCE REPORT: The suggested content of screening interviews, which provide information regarding the donation process, elicits pertinent medical and psychosocial history, and assesses NDD motivation are presented in this report. Approaches to identifying the center that would evaluate the suitability of the NDD, to performing the kidney recovery, and to selecting the NDD recipient are also proposed. Other ethical issues such as the use of prisoners as an NDD, compensation for the NDD, media involvement, and communication between the NDD and recipient are discussed. CONCLUSION: The willingness of health care professionals to consider NDD volunteers is driven by the compelling need to provide organs for an ever-expanding list of patients awaiting a kidney transplant. However, the psychological impact and emotional reward of donation has yet to be determined for NDD who may not have any relationship to the recipient or knowledge of the recipient's outcome. Transplant centers that accept NDD should document an informed consent process that details donor risks, assures donor safety, and determines that the goals and expectations of the NDD and the recipient can be realized.

Communication↗