The Science and Social Necessity of Deceased Organ Donation

Successful deceased organ donation requires a reproducible – consistent (scientific) system that evaluates the potential for organ donation and determines objectively whether the national system is achieving its goals. The science of organ donation also pertains to the determination of death. We are a common humanity that dies similarly – a humanity whose ultimate criterion of life resides in the function of the human brain. The recent brain death law of Israel encouragingly enables a determination of death by the loss of neurologic function, but it has become complicated by a practice that may perpetuate societal misperceptions. As a result opportunities for deceased organ donation – to provide for Israelis in need of organ transplants – are being lost. A statured task force of society could be assembled to convey its support for deceased donation to influence society and resolve these misperceptions. The World Health Organization is now calling for each member state to achieve a self-sufficiency in organ donation and transplantation “equitably meeting the transplantation needs of a given population using resources from within that population”. Patients should not be compelled to go to foreign countries for their organs. Israel has been a leader in the development of a model program intended to address transplant tourism. Insurance companies are no longer permitted to provide resources for Israelis to undergo illegal transplants in foreign destinations. The social necessity of a scientifically and medically applied system of deceased organ donation is now evident so that a sufficient number of organs can be available for patients from within the country where they reside

Morbidity and Mortality After Living Kidney Donation, 1999 2001: Survey of United States Transplant Centers

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/75563/1/j.1038-5282.2001.00400.x-i1.pd

Utilizing List Exchange and Non-directed Donation through “Chain” Paired Kidney Donations

In a list exchange (LE), the intended recipient in an incompatible pair receives priority on the deceased donor waitlist (DD-waitlist) after the paired incompatible donor donates a kidney to a DD-waitlist candidate. A non-directed donor’s (ND-D) kidney is usually transplanted directly to a DD-waitlist candidate. These two established practices would help even more transplant candidates if they were integrated with kidney paired donation (KPD). We consider a scenario in which the donor of an LE intended recipient (LE-IR) donates to a compatible KPD intended recipient (KPD-IR), and the KPD donor (KPD-D) donates to the waitlist (an LE-chain). We consider a similar scenario in which an ND-D donates to a KPD-IR and the KPD-D donates to the DD-waitlist (an ND-chain). Using data derived from the New England Program for Kidney Exchange (NEPKE) and from OPTN/SRTR recipient-donor distributions, simulations are presented to evaluate the potential impact of chain exchanges coordinated with KPD. LE donors (LE-D) and ND-D who are ABO-O result in the highest number of additional transplants, while results for ABO-A and B donors are similar to each other. We recommend that both LE and ND donations be utilized through chain exchanges

Utilizing List Exchange and Non-directed Donation through “Chain” Paired Kidney Donations

In a list exchange (LE), the intended recipient in an incompatible pair receives priority on the deceased donor waitlist (DD-waitlist) after the paired incompatible donor donates a kidney to a DD-waitlist candidate. A non-directed donor’s (ND-D) kidney is usually transplanted directly to a DD-waitlist candidate. These two established practices would help even more transplant candidates if they were integrated with kidney paired donation (KPD). We consider a scenario in which the donor of an LE intended recipient (LE-IR) donates to a compatible KPD intended recipient (KPD-IR), and the KPD donor (KPD-D) donates to the waitlist (an LE-chain). We consider a similar scenario in which an ND-D donates to a KPD-IR and the KPD-D donates to the DD-waitlist (an ND-chain). Using data derived from the New England Program for Kidney Exchange (NEPKE) and from OPTN/SRTR recipient-donor distributions, simulations are presented to evaluate the potential impact of chain exchanges coordinated with KPD. LE donors (LE-D) and ND-D who are ABO-O result in the highest number of additional transplants, while results for ABO-A and B donors are similar to each other. We recommend that both LE and ND donations be utilized through chain exchanges

Increasing the Opportunity of Live Kidney Donation by Matching for Two and Three Way Exchanges

Background: To expand the opportunity for paired live donor kidney transplantation, computerized matching algorithms have been designed to identify maximal sets of compatible donor/recipient pairs from a registry of incompatible pairs submitted as candidates for transplantation. Methods: Demographic data of patients who had been evaluated for live donor kidney transplantation but found to be incompatible with their potential donor (because of ABO blood group or positive crossmatch) were submitted for computer analysis and matching. Data included ABO and HLA types of donor and recipient, %PRA and specificity of recipient alloantibody, donor/recipient relationship, and the reason the donor was incompatible. The data set used for the initial simulation included 29 patients with one donor each and 16 patients with multiple donors for a total of 45 patients and 68 donor/patient pairs. In addition, a simulation based on OPTN/SRTR data was used to further assess the practical importance of multiple exchange combinations. Results: If only exchanges involving two patient-donor pairs were allowed, a maximum of 8 patient-donor pairs in the data set could exchange kidneys. If 3-way exchanges were also allowed, a maximum of 11 pairs could exchange kidneys. Simulations with OPTN/SRTR data demonstrate that the increase in the number of potential transplants if 3-way exchanges are allowed is robust, and does not depend on the particular patients in our sample. Conclusions: A computerized matching protocol can be used to identify donor/recipient pairs from a registry of incompatible pairs who can potentially enter into donor exchanges that otherwise would not readily occur

Increasing the Opportunity of Live Kidney Donation by Matching for Two and Three Way Exchanges

Background: To expand the opportunity for paired live donor kidney transplantation, computerized matching algorithms have been designed to identify maximal sets of compatible donor/recipient pairs from a registry of incompatible pairs submitted as candidates for transplantation. Methods: Demographic data of patients who had been evaluated for live donor kidney transplantation but found to be incompatible with their potential donor (because of ABO blood group or positive crossmatch) were submitted for computer analysis and matching. Data included ABO and HLA types of donor and recipient, %PRA and specificity of recipient alloantibody, donor/recipient relationship, and the reason the donor was incompatible. The data set used for the initial simulation included 29 patients with one donor each and 16 patients with multiple donors for a total of 45 patients and 68 donor/patient pairs. In addition, a simulation based on OPTN/SRTR data was used to further assess the practical importance of multiple exchange combinations. Results: If only exchanges involving two patient-donor pairs were allowed, a maximum of 8 patient-donor pairs in the data set could exchange kidneys. If 3-way exchanges were also allowed, a maximum of 11 pairs could exchange kidneys. Simulations with OPTN/SRTR data demonstrate that the increase in the number of potential transplants if 3-way exchanges are allowed is robust, and does not depend on the particular patients in our sample. Conclusions: A computerized matching protocol can be used to identify donor/recipient pairs from a registry of incompatible pairs who can potentially enter into donor exchanges that otherwise would not readily occur

Determinants of Discard of Expanded Criteria Donor Kidneys: Impact of Biopsy and Machine Perfusion

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73820/1/j.1600-6143.2008.02157.x.pd

What makes you not a Buddhist? : a preliminary mapping of values

This study sets out to establish which Buddhist values contrasted with or were shared by adolescents from a non-Buddhist population. A survey of attitude toward a variety of Buddhist values was fielded in a sample of 352 non-Buddhist schoolchildren aged between 13 and 15 in London. Buddhist values where attitudes were least positive concerned the worth of being a monk/nun or meditating, offering candles & incense on the Buddhist shrine, friendship on Sangha Day, avoiding drinking alcohol, seeing the world as empty or impermanent and Nirvana as the ultimate peace. Buddhist values most closely shared by non-Buddhists concerned the Law of Karma, calming the mind, respecting those deserving of respect, subjectivity of happiness, welfare work, looking after parents in old age and compassion to cuddly animals. Further significant differences of attitude toward Buddhism were found in partial correlations with the independent variables of sex, age and religious affiliation. Correlation patterns paralleled those previously described in theistic religions. Findings are applied to spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and for the teaching of religious to pupils of no faith adherence. The study recommends that quantitative psychometrics employed to conceptualize Buddhist values by discriminant validity in this study could be extended usefully to other aspects of the study of Buddhism, particularly in quest of validity in the conceptualization of Buddhist identity within specifically Buddhist populations

Correction to:Expanding controlled donation after the circulatory determination of death: statement from an international collaborative (Intensive Care Medicine, (2021), 47, 3, (265-281), 10.1007/s00134-020-06341-7)

The article “Expanding controlled donation after the circulatory determination of death: statement from an international collaborative”, written by Domínguez-Gil, B., Ascher, N., Capron, A.M. et al. was originally published electronically on the publisher’s internet portal on 21 February 2021 without open access. With the author(s)’ decision to opt for Open Choice the copyright of the article changed on 25 March 2021 to © The Author(s) 2021 and the article is forthwith distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution this article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. The original article has been corrected