Abstract
As the suicide rate for early adolescents has doubled in the past decade, pediatric liver transplant centers may more frequently encounter patients who present with acute liver failure secondary to an intentional ingestion of substances. The purpose of this article is to explore the ethical issues surrounding the determination of liver transplant candidacy for pediatric patients with suspected intentional ingestion of substances. Two case examples of pediatric patients who were evaluated for liver transplant after a suspected intentional ingestion of substances are explored. Evaluations to determine transplant candidacy in cases where an overdose is suspected, but unable to be confirmed, are typically complicated by time constraints due to medical urgency and potential biases by members of multidisciplinary transplant team members. More rigorous examination of long-term outcomes in pediatric patients who are post–liver transplant secondary to ingestion of substances is warranted. Until more robust pediatric outcome data are available, clinicians should continue to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of transplant while being guided by ethical principles. Pediatric psychologists working with potential liver transplant patients play a key role in ensuring that ethical principles are considered as a guide to inform transplant listing decisions.
Implications for Impact Statement
This article explores ethical issues that may arise in determining whether an adolescent should be listed for liver transplant after a suspected intentional overdose. The application of the ethical principles of distributive justice, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and autonomy is discussed. This article may assist pediatric psychologists, social workers, and other health care providers should they face similar ethical dilemmas when making solid organ transplant candidacy decisions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.