Biomedical subjects
Willij Zuidema
Publications and source records attributed to Willij Zuidema.
One donor, two transplants: willingness to participate in altruistically unbalanced exchange donation.
Kidney exchange donation programs offer a good solution to help patients with a willing, but incompatible living kidney donor. Literature shows that blood type O patients are less likely to be selected for transplantation within a living exchange donation program. 'Altruistically unbalanced donation' could help these blood type O patients: one donor-recipient pair is incompatible (e.g. A-donor > O-recipient) and the other pair is compatible, but not identical (e.g. O-donor > A-recipient). Exchanging these kidneys would result in two compatible living donor kidney transplants. We studied whether compatible pairs would be willing to participate in such procedure. We included 96 living kidney donors and recipients in our study. These donors and recipients could be divided into two groups: (i) donors and their direct recipients (n = 48), and (ii) paired exchange donors and their intended recipients (n = 48). All were asked whether they would be willing to participate in altruistically unbalanced exchange donation, as long as direct donation was also an option. We found no group differences. We found that one third of the donors and recipients are willing to participate in altruistically unbalanced kidney exchanges. Therefore this form of donation may be a feasible addition to already existing living kidney exchange programs.
Altruistic living kidney donation challenges psychosocial research and policy: a response to previous articles.
BACKGROUND: Policies with respect to altruistic living kidney donation to strangers (both nondirected and directed donation) should, in addition to medical criteria, preferably be based on valid attitude research data. However, deciding on what data are relevant is a normative issue. The challenge for both research and policy making is to bring together empirical and normative issues. METHODS: By comparing two recent surveys, the authors shed light on the complex methodologic and ethical questions surrounding altruistic living kidney donation. RESULTS: The authors found that the main methodologic issues were the distinction between the willingness to donate and the acceptability of the offer, the difference between public attitudes observed in surveys ("facts") and well-considered moral judgments ("norms"), and biases caused by a misperception of central moral concepts (e.g., discrimination and injustice). The authors argue that transplantation centers have a good case for applying or initiating altruistic living donation programs. Centers should seek to influence public attitudes if these attitudes are shown to be biased by prejudice and misunderstanding. CONCLUSIONS: The authors advocate an interaction between research and policy making. Social research can best influence transplantation policies in altruistic living donation by in-depth interviews into the complicated background beliefs underlying personal preferences. In addition, the public should be encouraged to judge the immanent issues in a morally responsible way. In the end, a fair balance should be established between the impartial requirements of social justice and the partial motivations of individuals involved in altruistic living donation. Although discriminatory acts should be rejected categorically, donation policies should be willing to consider, support, and accept motivations based on personal loyalties.
Reluctant acceptance of xenotransplantation in kidney patients on the waiting list for transplantation.
Previous research has shown contradictory results regarding the acceptance of xenotransplantation (XT) by kidney patients. This variance in attitude towards XT could be explained by differences in knowledge of XT, the availability of alternative treatment options, specific beliefs and cognitions of the patient, and differences in the health status of the patients. We studied 61 patients in this contention in the Netherlands waiting for a kidney transplant. All took part in in-depth interviews and filled out questionnaires on two occasions, once before and once after an information brochure on XT had been read. We found that a better health status is correlated with a greater acceptance of XT, but only before information was given. After information had been given, the acceptance of XT decreased significantly. However, if XT is the only possibility in a life-threatening situation, almost all patients are willing to accept XT, except for a small group (approximately 10-15%) with fundamental religious and/or spiritual objections against such treatment. When alternative treatment options such as a human cadaver donor, a living related donor or commercial donor are offered, the majority of patients would prefer those to XT. The main reason for reluctance is uncertainty about the risks of XT to personal health. Because alternatives are currently available, we expect that XT will become more popular only if future results of this procedure have proved to be comparable to transplantation with a human donor kidney.
Postmortal or living related donor: preferences of kidney patients.
We studied the willingness and motives for accepting a living kidney donation in 61 kidney patients on the waiting list by a semistructured interview and a questionnaire on two occasions. Between both moments of measurement patients received general information on transplantation options. We tested whether demographic data, medical status data or quality of life correlated with treatment choice. Our results showed that 61% of the patients preferred living kidney donation to postmortal donation. Their main motivation for this choice was the better quality of the living kidney. The most often named reasons to choose postmortal donation were unwillingness to burden a loved one and fear of psychological problems in relation to the donor after transplantation. There was no statistical significant change of preference between both moments of measurement; however there seemed to be a tendency in favor of living kidney donation. Fewer years spent on renal replacement therapy correlated statistically significant with the choice for living kidney donation. These findings encourage the development of new strategies to facilitate the living kidney donation program, and confirm the need for the standard option of psychosocial support for patients.
Starting a crossover kidney transplantation program in the Netherlands: ethical and psychological considerations.
On April 15th, 2003, the first crossover kidney transplantation took place in The Netherlands. In September of the same year, a national database was established to facilitate kidney exchange between two donor-recipient couples. During 2004, kidneys from living donors will be exchanged between the seven university medical centers in The Netherlands. One of the conditions for successfully implementing this program was the need to address the ethical and psychologic implications involved. In this article we will discuss the ethical and psychologic considerations that are accompanying the practical preparations for the first Dutch crossover transplantation program. We identified five topics of interest: the influence of "donation by strangers" on the motivation and willingness of donor-patient couples, the issue of anonymity, the loss of the possibility of "medical excuses" for unwilling donors, the view that crossover is a first step to commercial organ trade, and the interference with existing organ donation programs. We concluded that whether viewed separately or in combination, these issues do not impede the efficient organization of a crossover program or raise worrying ethical issues.