Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T10:38:14.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

All Donations Should Not Be Treated Equally: A Response to Jeffrey Kahn's Commentary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Lainie Friedman Ross
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Jeffrey Kahn and I agree that organ donation by altruistic strangers is acceptable, and that the organ procured this way ought to be allocated equitably. Our agreement in principle, however, is challenged in the details of its application. Specifically, I want to focus on three issues raised by Kahn that merit further discussion: whether relationships matter; how kidneys should be allocated; and the ethical acceptability of the expanded donor pool.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , Fall 2002 , pp. 448 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Kahn, J. “Making the Most of Strangers' Altruism,” Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics, 30, no. 3 (2002): 446–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, L.F. et al. , “Should All Living Donors Be Treated Equally?,” Transplantation, 74 (2002): 418–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See the transplant services of the Fairview-University Medical Center website, at <http://www.fairviewtransplant.org/livertx.htm> (last visited September 12, 2002).+(last+visited+September+12,+2002).>Google Scholar
Hardwig, J., “Should Women Think in Terms of Rights?,” Ethics, 94 (1984): 441–55, at 445–46.Google Scholar
Ross, et al. , supra note 2 See also Elliott, C., “Doing Harm: Living Organ Donors, Clinical Research and the Tenth Man,” Journal of Medical Ethics, 21 (1995): 91–96.Google Scholar
Ross, L.F. “Solid Organ Donation Between Strangers,” Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics, 30, no. 3 (2002): 440–445.Google Scholar
Kahn, , supra note 1, at 447.Google Scholar
Glannon, W. Ross, L.F., “Do Genetic Relationships Create Moral Obligations?,” Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics, 11 (2002): 153–59, at 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hingorani, S. Watkins, S.L., “Dialysis for End-Stage Renal Disease,” Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 12 (2000): 140–45.Google Scholar
Glannon, Ross, , supra note 8, at 155.Google Scholar
Ross, et al. , supra note 2, at 419.Google Scholar
Glannon, Ross, , supra note 8, at 155–56.Google Scholar
Id. at 156–57.Google Scholar
Kahn, , supra note 1, at 447.Google Scholar
Matas, A.J. et al. , “Nondirected Donation of Kidneys from Living Donors,” N. Engl. J. Med., 343 (2000): 433–36, at 435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, , supra note 1, at 447.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Veatch, R.M., Transplantation Ethics (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2000). For a full discussion of directed donations. see id. at 303–04 and 388–411.Google Scholar
It may be that we should question this policy for cadaveric organs as well, but I will limit my comments to living donors. I would like to thank Carol Stocking, Ph.D., for pushing me on this issue and Glannon, Walter, Ph.D., for helping me to critically examine the ethics raised by this issue.Google Scholar
Kant, I., Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. Paton, H.J. (New York: Harper & Row, 1964): at 89;Google Scholar
and The Doctrine of Virtue, trans. Gregor, M. (New York: Harper & Row, 1964): at 54.Google Scholar
I thank Goldblatt, Ann Dudley J.D.L.L.M., for suggesting this analogy to me.Google Scholar
See, for example, Ackerman, T., “Donation Dilemmas: Schools Need Cash but Some Cringe at Strings,” The Houston Chronicle, April 2, 1995, at A33;.Google Scholar
Golden, T., “Donations to Universities Sometimes Carry a Price,” The New York Times, Dec. 9, 1996,): at A1; Associated Press.Google Scholar
“Yale Refuses Gay Endowment Offer: AIDS Activist Alleges Homophobia,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 10, 1997, at 02A.Google Scholar
See Veatch, , supra note 18, at 388–401.Google Scholar
I write that the obstacle was or should have been understood to be physiologic and not moral, because this was not the case at all transplant centers. Elsewhere, my colleagues and I explore the basis for this policy, which was twofold. First was the belief that the improved transplant survival that was seen with living donors was due to a degree of genetic similarity between the donor and recipient (i.e., matching for minor as well as major histocompatibility antigens) that was not possible with unrelated donors. This was found to be less important than the fact that the organ was from a living person. Second, many transplant programs were also of the belief that only biological family members were properly motivated. The exclusion of all nongenetic relatives failed to distinguish between the emotionally related nongenetic relative (e.g., spouse or close personal friend) and the non-emotionally related stranger, and “suggests a misguided valuation of genetic relationships instead of on relationships grounded in intimacy.”Google Scholar
See Ross, L.F. et al. , supra note 2, at 419.Google Scholar
Kahn, , supra note 1, at 447.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar