Evolving methods of communication have increased public appeals for living organ and hematopoietic stem cell donations from strangers, giving public solicitations more visibility. Within the academic literature, perspectives have been divisive, reflecting ethical justifications for and against appeals for living unrelated donors. Transplant programs and clinicians face a variety of ethical dilemmas when patients and their solicited donors present to the hospital.
Objective:
A scoping review methodology was designed to (1) explore the academic literature and (2) summarize and disseminate key research findings.
Methods:
We used the Arksey & O’Malley framework for conducting and reporting scoping reviews and to review the prominent ethical arguments, counterarguments, and policy implications in the literature. From 4616 articles identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL, we screened titles and abstracts to assess eligibility for full-text review.
Results:
We retrieved 280 full texts, extracted data from 61, and coded and analyzed 41 papers. Of these, 36 were from or based in the US context. Two articles originated from Canada. Three articles addressed public solicitations of hematopoietic stem cell donation. We mapped themes under 3 major headings related to public solicitations of living unrelated donors for organs and hematopoietic stem cells: (1) interpretations and modes, (2) ethical arguments for and against, and (3) policy implications and suggestions to address challenges for clinical practice.
Discussion:
The academic literature contains divisive perspectives of public solicitations for organ and hematopoietic stem cell donation, each of which deserves further reflection for implications for policy and practice.
KoopCE. Promoting organs for transplantation. JAMA. 1984;251(12):1591–1592.
2.
FirstMR. Expanding the donor pool. Semin Nephrol. 1997;17(4):373–380.
3.
ThielG. Emotionally related living kidney donation: pro and contra. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1997;12(9):1820–1824.
4.
RossLF. Media appeals for directed altruistic living liver donations: lessons from Camilo Sandoval Ewen. Perspect Biol Med. 2002;45(3):329–337.
5.
KaplanBSPoliseK. In defense of altruistic kidney donation by strangers. Pediatr Nephrol. 2000;14(6):518–522.
6.
AppelJMFoxMD. Organ solicitation on the Internet: every man for himself?Hastings Cent Rep. 2005;35(3):14.
7.
RobertsonC. Organ advertising: desperate patients solicit volunteers. J Law Med Ethics. 2005;33(1):170–174.
8.
OlsenDP. Arranging live organ donation over the Internet. Am J Nurs. 2007;107(3):69–72.
9.
DeesRHSingerEA. KidneyMatch.com: the ethics of solicited organ donations. J Clin Ethics. 2008;19(2):141–149.
10.
WrightL. Ethical controversies in public solicitations for organs. Transplant Rev. 2008;22(3):184–186. doi:10.1016/j.trre.2008.02.003.
11.
RodrigueJRAntonellisTMandelbrotDAHantoDW. Web-based requests for living organ donors: who are the solicitors?Clin Transplant. 2008;22(6):749–753. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0012.2008.00870.x.
12.
SteinbergD. Kidneys and the kindness of strangers. Health Aff. 2003;22(4):184–189.
13.
BramstedtKAFlormanSMillerCM. Ethical challenges in live organ donation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2005;10(4):340–344.
14.
WrightLCampbellM. Soliciting kidneys on web sites: is it fair?Semin Dial. 2006;19(1):5–7.
15.
ParameshASKillackeyMTZhangRAlperBSlakeyDPFlormanSS. Living donor kidney transplantation: medical, legal, and ethical considerations. South Med J. 2007;100(12):1208–1213.
16.
RodrigueJRPavlakisMDanovitchGM. Evaluating living kidney donors: relationship types, psychosocial criteria, and consent processes at US transplant programs. Am J Transplant. 2007;7(10):2326–2332.
17.
VerghesePSGarveyCAMauerMSMatasAJ. Media appeals by pediatric patients for living donors and the impact on a transplant center. Transplantation. 2011;91(6):593. doi:10.1097/TP.0b013e3182063066.
18.
MaysNRobertsEPopayJ. Synthesising research evidence. In: FulopNAllenPClarkeA, eds. Studying the Organization and Delivery of Health Services: Research Methods; 2001; 188–220.
19.
ArkseyHO’MalleyL. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodoly. 2005;8(1):19–32.
20.
WrightLBuchmanDChandlerJ. Fast facts: public solicitations for solid organs and hematopoietic stem cells from living donors. Canadian National Transplant Research Program. 2015. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/5a805e_be3abb0f072144698ded27047d221e70.pdf. Updated September 1, 2015. Accessed April 15, 2018.
21.
BabineauJ. Product review: Covidence (systematic review software). J Canadian Health Librar. 2014;35(2):68–71.
22.
NoyesJLewinS. Extracting qualitative evidence. In: NoyesJBoothAHannesKHardenAHarrisJLewinSLockwoodC, eds. Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. London, United Kingdom: Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group. 2011. http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance.
23.
Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2011.
SandelowskiMBarrosoJ. Classifying the findings in qualitative studies. Qual Health Res. 2003;13(7):905–923.
26.
NewellKAFormicaRNGillJS. Engaging living kidney donors in a new paradigm of postdonation care. Am J Transplant. 2016;16(1):29–32. doi:10.1111/ajt.13524.
27.
SwitzerGEDewMAButterworthVASimmonsRGSchimmelM. Understanding donors’ motivations: a study of unrelated bone marrow donors. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(1):137–147.
28.
ButterworthVASimmonsRGBartschGRandallBSchimmelMStroncekDF. Psychosocial effects of unrelated bone marrow donation: experiences of the national marrow donor program. Blood. 1993;81(7):1947–1959.
29.
BrennanP. Public solicitation of organs on the Internet: ethical and policy issues. J Emerg Nurs. 2006;32(2):191–193.
30.
ClarkeRN. Organ donation: a significant marketing challenge. Health Mark Q. 2007;24(3-4):189–200. doi:10.1080/359680802125329.
31.
DelmonicoFLGrahamWK. Direction of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and United Network for Organ Sharing regarding the oversight of live donor transplantation and solicitation for organs. Am J Transplant. 2006;6(1):37–40.
32.
DelmonicoFLDewMA. Living donor kidney transplantation in a global environment. Kidney Int. 2007;71(7):608–614.
33.
FriedmanALLopez-SolerRICuffyMCCroninDCII. Patient access to transplantation with an internet-identified live kidney donor: a survey of US centers. Commentary. Transplantation. 2008;85(6):794–800. doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e318167d22e.
34.
Garonzik-WangJMBergerJCRosRL. Live donor champion: finding live kidney donors by separating the advocate from the patient. Transplantation. 2012;93(11):1147–1150. doi:10.1097/TP0b013e31824e75a5.
35.
JowseySGSchneeklothTD. Psychosocial factors in living organ donation: clinical and ethical challenges. Transplant Rev. 2008;22(3):192–195. doi:10.1016/j.trre.2008.04.008.
36.
MurphyTF. Would my story get me a kidney?Hastings Cent Rep. 2006;36(2):49.
37.
SteinbergD. The allocation of organs donated by altruistic strangers. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(3):197–203.
38.
SteinbrookR. Public solicitation of organ donors. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(5):441–444.
39.
TruogRD. The ethics of organ donation by living donors. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(5):444–446.
40.
TruogRDLowneyJHantoDCaplanABrockD. Soliciting organs on the Internet. Med Ethics (Burlingt Mass.). 2005;12(3):5–8.
41.
VeysCGBramstedtKA. Stranger donors: a key link in transplant chains. Prog Transplant. 2010;20(4):366–371.
42.
WilliamsME. Internet organ solicitation, explained. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2006;13(1):70–75.
43.
DewMAJacobsCLJowseySGHantoRMillerCDelmonicoFL. Guidelines for the psychosocial evaluation of living unrelated kidney donors in the United States. Am J Transplant. 2007;7(5):1047–1054.
44.
HantoDW. Ethical challenges posed by the solicitation of deceased and living organ donors. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(10):1062–1066.
45.
BramstedtKADelmonicoFL. Assessing the motives of living, nonrelated donors. Virtual Mentor. 2012;14(3):186–189. doi:10.1001/virtualmentor.2012.14.3.ecas1-1203.
46.
GlazierAKSasjackS. Should it be illicit to solicit-a legal analysis of policy options to regulate solicitation of organs for transplant. Health Matrix Clevel. 2007;17(1):63–99.
47.
NeidichEMNeidichABCooperJTBramstedtKA. The ethical complexities of online organ solicitation via donor–patient websites: avoiding the “beauty contest.”Am J Transplant. 2012;12(1):43–47. doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03765.x.
48.
SpitalA. Solicitation of deceased and living organ donors. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(23):2427–2429.
49.
VeatchRM. Organs on the Internet. Hastings Cent Rep. 2005;35(3):6.
50.
ChangAAndersonEETurnerHTShohamDHouSHGramsM. Identifying potential kidney donors using social networking web sites. Clin Transplant. 2013;27(3):E320–E326. doi:10.1111/ctr.12122.
51.
CostelloKLMurilloAP. “I want your kidney!” Information seeking, sharing, and disclosure when soliciting a kidney donor online. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94(3):423–426. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.11.009.
52.
BoasH. Where do human organs come from? Trends of generalized and restricted altruism in organ donations. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73:1378–1385. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.07.028.
53.
DomingoAFSalvanaEM. Solicitation of deceased and living organ donors. N Eng J Med. 2007;356(23):2427–2529.
54.
SnyderDJMillerFGRosensteinDL. Solicitation of deceased and living organ donors. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(23):2427–2429.
55.
MjøenGHallanSHartmannA. Long-term risks for kidney donors. Kidney Int. 2014;86(1):162–167. doi:10.1038/ki.2013.460.
56.
ElmanAWrightLZaltzmanJS. Public solicitation for organ donors: a time for direction in Canada. CMAJ. 2016;188(7):487–488. doi:10.1503/cmaj.150964.
57.
Van RoodJJOudshoornM. Eleven million donors in bone marrow donors worldwide! Time for reassessment?Bone Marrow Transplant. 2008;41(1):1–9.
58.
ToulminSE. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
59.
VerheijB. Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme. Argumentation. 2005;19(3):347–371.
60.
FortinMCBuchmanDWrightL. Public solicitation of anonymous organ donors: a position paper by the Canadian Society of Transplantation. Transplantation. 2017;101(1):17–20. doi:10.1097/TP.000000000001514.
