Practical and Ethical Challenges to Paired Exchange Programs
暂无分享,去创建一个
The development of a regional consortium is commendable as it requires coordination between competing institutions. The authors deserve additional credit for openly discussing three programmatic snags that their program experienced in its first 2 years. The first was the number of candidates with high priority waiting for a cadaveric kidney. The consortium decided to permit only two high priority candidates at a time “to avoid an unpredictable period of waiting on the list”. While this policy may frustrate those who are waiting for a transplant and have a willing but ABO-incompatible donor, it is not unjust. Justice requires that equals be treated equally; it does not require that potential exchanges trump all other morally relevant allocation considerations.
[1] L. Ross,et al. Kidney exchange programs: an expanded view of the ethical issues , 1998 .
[2] Stefanos A. Zenios,et al. PRIMUM NON NOCERE: AVOIDING HARM TO VULNERABLE WAIT LIST CANDIDATES IN AN INDIRECT KIDNEY EXCHANGE , 2001, Transplantation.
[3] D. Goldfarb. Donor kidney exchanges. , 2005, The Journal of urology.
[4] S. Zenios,et al. Restricting Living-Donor–Cadaver-Donor Exchanges to Ensure that Standard Blood Type O Wait-List Candidates Benefit , 2004, Transplantation.