Impression Management during Evaluation and Psychological Reactions Post-donation of Living Kidney Donors

Many healthcare providers have been concerned about the extent to which potential kidney donors use impression management or concealment of important information regarding their medical history, current functioning, or other circumstances that could affect whether they are accepted as donors. To date, however, there has been very little empirical examination of these questions. It is also not known whether donors\u27 use of impression management pre-donation is related to their reactions and adjustment post-donation. Methods This study surveyed 76 individuals who had donated a kidney one to six yr previously regarding their use of impression management and their concealing of information during their psychological evaluations. They were also asked about their reactions to the donation and whether they would make the same decision again. In addition, 21 of these donors participated in focus groups that explored these questions in depth. Results Many of the kidney donors reported that they possessed very strong motivation to donate and consequently used impression management in their interactions with medical professionals pre-donation. Very few donors, however, indicated that they concealed information during their pre-donation evaluations. The donors\u27 psychological reactions post-donation were generally positive, and nearly all indicated that they would make the same decision again

The relevance of EU directive 2010/53/EU for living organ donation practice

With the recent transposition of Directive 2010/53/EU into the transplant regulation of EU Member States, the time is right to have a closer look at its implications for living organ donation practice. We first discuss the relevance of the Action Plan which forms the basis for the policy of the European Commission in the field of organ donation and transplantation. We then analyze the impact of Directive 2010/53/EU which was adopted to support the implementation of the Priority Actions set out in the Action Plan. We more specifically focus on the obligations of transplant centers engaged in living organ donation and highlight their significance for clinical practice. Finally, we point out some strengths and weaknesses of the Directive in addressing living organ donation

Raising awareness of unspecified living kidney donation: An ELPAT

Background: Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the preferred treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease and unspecified living kidney donation is morally justified. Despite the excellent outcomes of LDKT, unspecified kidney donation (UKD) is limited to a minority of European countries due to legal constraints and moral objections. Consequently, there are significant variations in practice and approach between countries and the contribution of UKD is undervalued. Where UKD is accepted as routine, an increasing number of patients in the kidney exchange programme are successfully transplanted when a 'chain' of transplants is triggered by a single unspecified donor. By expanding the shared living donor pool, the benefit of LDKT is extended to patients who do not have their own living donor because a recipient on the national transplant list always completes the chain. Is there a moral imperative to increase the scope of UKD and how could this be achieved? Methods: An examination of the literature and individual country practices was performed to identify the limitations on UKD in Europe and recommend strategies to increase transplant opportunities. Results: Primary limitations to UKD, key players and their roles and responsibilities were identified. Conclusions: Raising awareness to encourage the public to volunteer to donate is appropriate and desirable to increase UKD. Recommendations are made to provide a framework for increasing awareness and engagement in UKD. The public, healthcare professionals, policy makers and society and religious leaders have a role to play in creating an environment for change

Should health care professionals encourage living kidney donation?

Living kidney donation provides a promising opportunity in situations where the scarcity of cadaveric kidneys is widely acknowledged. While many patients and their relatives are willing to accept its benefits, others are concerned about living kidney programs; they appear to feel pressured into accepting living kidney transplantations as the only proper option for them. As we studied the attitudes and views of patients and their relatives, we considered just how actively health care professionals should encourage living donation. We argue that active interference in peoples’ personal lives is justified - if not obligatory. First, we address the ambiguous ideals of non-directivity and value neutrality in counselling. We describe the main pitfalls implied in these concepts, and conclude that these concepts cannot account for the complex reality of living donation and transplantation. We depict what is required instead as truthful information and context-relative counselling. We then consider professional interference into personal belief systems. We argue that individual convictions are not necessarily strong, stable, or deep. They may be flawed in many ways. In order to justify interference in peoples’ personal lives, it is crucial to understand the structure of these convictions. Evidence suggests that both patients and their relatives have attitudes towards living kidney donation that are often open to change and, accordingly, can be influenced. We show how ethical theories can account for this reality and can help us to discern between justified and unjustified interference. We refer to Stephen Toulmin’s model of the structure of logical argument, the Rawlsian model of reflective equilibrium, and Thomas Nagel’s representation of the particularistic position