Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

A Spital

Publications and source records attributed to A Spital.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Public attitudes toward kidney donation by friends and altruistic strangers in the United States.

BACKGROUND: A severe shortage of organs is one of the major barriers facing transplantation today. One promising approach to this serious problem is to increase the use of genetically unrelated living kidney donors. Because of excellent results and favorable ethical considerations, spousal donation has become a widely accepted practice in the United States. The majority of U.S. transplant centers are now also willing to consider friends as donors, but they seem to be less comfortable about this donor source and most centers are opposed to using strangers. This study was designed to see what the public thinks about these issues. METHODS: A telephone survey of 1009 randomly selected adults living in the U.S. was conducted by the Gallup Organization. The survey asked about the acceptability of kidney donation by close friends and altruistic strangers and the willingness of respondents to make such donations themselves. RESULTS: Over 90% of respondents believe that kidney donation by close friends is acceptable and 80% feel the same way about kidney donation by altruistic strangers. Most respondents (76%) would probably donate a kidney to a close friend with renal failure and 24% said they would even donate a kidney to a stranger for free. CONCLUSION: It seems that the vast majority of American adults believe that living kidney donation by friends and altruistic strangers is an acceptable practice and many would consider making such donations themselves. When considered along with excellent results and favorable ethical arguments, these data suggest that kidney donation by friends and altruistic strangers should be considered as acceptable as is donation by spouses.

Altruism↗
PubMed2001

Ethical issues in living organ donation: donor autonomy and beyond.

Despite nearly 50 years of experience with living kidney donation, ethical questions about this practice continue to haunt us today. In this editorial I will address two of them: (1) Given the possibility of limited understanding and coercion, how can we be sure that a person who offers to donate an organ is acting autonomously? and (2) Do people have a right to donate? The universal requirement for informed consent is the traditional method for ensuring that a person is acting autonomously. But, while obtaining fully informed consent is desirable, it may not always be achievable or necessary. When the recipient is very dear to the potential donor, the donor may base his decision primarily on care and concern rather than on a careful weighing of risks and benefits. I will argue that consent that emanates from such deep affection should be considered just as valid as consent that is fully informed. But consent is not enough. There is no absolute right to donate an organ. If there were such a right, then some physician would be obligated to remove an offered organ upon request, regardless of the risks involved. I do not believe that physicians have such an obligation. Physicians are moral agents who are responsible for their actions and for the welfare of their patients. Therefore, while the values and goals of the potential donor should be given great weight during the decision-making process, physicians may justifiably refuse to participate in living organ donation when they believe that the risks for the donor outweigh the benefits.

Conscience↗
PubMed2000

Consensus statement on the live organ donor.

OBJECTIVE: To recommend practice guidelines for transplant physicians, primary care providers, health care planners, and all those who are concerned about the well-being of the live organ donor. PARTICIPANTS: An executive group representing the National Kidney Foundation, and the American Societies of Transplantation, Transplant Surgeons, and Nephrology formed a steering committee of 12 members to evaluate current practices of living donor transplantation of the kidney, pancreas, liver, intestine, and lung. The steering committee subsequently assembled more than 100 representatives of the transplant community (physicians, nurses, ethicists, psychologists, lawyers, scientists, social workers, transplant recipients, and living donors) at a national conference held June 1-2, 2000, in Kansas City, Mo. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Attendees participated in 7 assigned work groups. Three were organ specific (lung, liver, and kidney) and 4 were focused on social and ethical concerns (informed consent, donor source, psychosocial issues, and live organ donor registry). Work groups' deliberations were structured by a series of questions developed by the steering committee. Each work group presented its deliberations to an open plenary session of all attendees. This information was stored and shaped into a statement circulated electronically to all attendees for their comments, and finally approved by the steering committee for publication. The term consensus is not meant to convey universal agreement of the participants. The statement identifies issues of controversy; however, the wording of the entire statement is a consensus by approval of all attendees. CONCLUSION: The person who gives consent to be a live organ donor should be competent, willing to donate, free from coercion, medically and psychosocially suitable, fully informed of the risks and benefits as a donor, and fully informed of the risks, benefits, and alternative treatment available to the recipient. The benefits to both donor and recipient must outweigh the risks associated with the donation and transplantation of the living donor organ.

Health Status↗
PubMed2000

Hypernatremia.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Humans↗
PubMed2000

Evolution of attitudes at U.S. transplant centers toward kidney donation by friends and altruistic strangers.

A severe shortage of organs is one of the major barriers facing transplantation today. One of the proposals designed to overcome this serious problem is to increase the use of genetically unrelated living kidney donors. Excellent results have been achieved with these volunteers and cogent arguments have been made that this practice is ethically acceptable. These considerations have encouraged many transplant centers to break with tradition and accept spousal donors. To see if there has been a similar change in attitudes toward other types of unrelated living donors, a survey was mailed to 208 U.S. renal transplant centers; 129 (62%) were returned. Ninety-three percent of responding centers said they would accept a close friend as a kidney donor. Although the majority of centers would not consider an altruistic stranger, a sizeable minority (38%) would. When compared with the results of previous surveys, these data show that attitudes toward unrelated living kidney donors have gradually become much more liberal.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1999

Diuretic-induced hyponatremia.

Diuretics are one of the most common causes of severe hyponatremia. Yet, despite several relevant studies and years of clinical experience, the mechanism and optimal treatment of diuretic-induced hyponatremia remain unclear. What is clear is that most cases are caused by thiazide rather than loop diuretics and that severe hyponatremia can develop very rapidly in susceptible patients. In this review, I will discuss the pathogenesis, clinical features, prevention, and treatment of diuretic-induced hyponatremia in the hope that increased awareness and understanding will reduce the incidence and complications of this potentially life-threatening syndrome.

Benzothiadiazines↗
PubMed1998

Should all human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients with end-stage renal disease be excluded from transplantation? The views of U.S. transplant centers.

BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients have generally been excluded from transplantation. Recent advances in the management and prognosis of these patients suggest that this policy should be reevaluated. METHODS: To explore the current views of U.S. transplant centers toward transplanting asymptomatic HIV-infected patients with end-stage renal disease, a written survey was mailed to the directors of transplantation at all 248 renal transplant centers in the United States. RESULTS: All 148 responding centers said they require HIV testing of prospective kidney recipients, and 84% of these centers would not transplant an individual who refuses HIV testing. The vast majority of responding centers would not transplant a kidney from a cadaveric (88%) or a living donor (91%) into an asymptomatic HIV-infected patient who is otherwise a good candidate for transplantation. Among the few centers that would consider transplanting an HIV-infected patient, not a single center had performed such a transplant in the year prior to the survey. Most centers fear that transplantation in the face of HIV infection would be harmful to the individual, and some believe that it would be a waste of precious organs. CONCLUSIONS: The great majority of U.S. renal transplant centers will not transplant kidneys to HIV-infected patients with end-stage renal disease, even if their infection is asymptomatic. However, advances in the management of HIV infection and a review of relevant ethical issues suggest that this approach should be reconsidered.

HIV Infections↗
PubMed1997

Should children ever donate kidneys? Views of U.S. transplant centers.

BACKGROUND: Living donors provide the best outcome for children undergoing renal transplantation. Most of these donors are parents. When parents are unable to donate, siblings are often considered. But what if the siblings are also children? Should they be permitted to donate? METHODS: To see how this difficult ethical question is currently handled, a survey was mailed to all U.S. renal transplant centers asking for their policies regarding kidney donation by minors (< 18 years old). RESULTS: Among the 117 responding centers that offer pediatric transplantation, the vast majority (81%) prefer living related donors for pediatric recipients. Yet, only 33% of responding centers would allow a monozygotic twin minor to donate a kidney to his or her twin, and even fewer (21%) would allow a nontwin minor to donate to a sibling. In the year before the survey, only two of these centers had actually used a child as a kidney donor. Furthermore, the great majority of responding centers (68%) require living donors to be at least 18 years old. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that most U.S. transplant centers are opposed to using children as living kidney donors. On the other hand, a careful analysis of this issue suggests that although donation by a minor should be uncommon, a complete ban of this practice may be unwarranted. In unusual circumstances in which no other suitable donor is available, consenting mature minors, and even rare immature minors who are highly likely to benefit from donating, may be ethically acceptable. Although there are probably no absolute wrong or right answers, the question of kidney donation by children should be readdressed.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1997

Ethical and policy issues in altruistic living and cadaveric organ donation.

Organs for transplantation are usually obtained from living genetic relatives or from heart-beating cadavers. Unfortunately, these sources have so far been unable to keep up with demand. As a result, there is a large and steadily increasing number of potential recipients awaiting transplantation, some of whom will die before an organ can be found. In an attempt to rectify this tragic situation, several solutions have been proposed. This review will consider proposals designed to increase the availability of human organs without resorting to commercialism. These include expanding the use of living donors by: 1) encouraging donations by genetic relatives; 2) allowing volunteers a greater voice in determining their own suitability; 3) encouraging the use of emotionally related individuals and accepting altruistic strangers; and 4) considering motivated identical twin minors and older adolescents as donors. Suggestions for increasing the pool of cadaveric donors include: 1) overcoming the family consent barrier by presuming consent, mandating completion of binding advanced directives, or by eliminating the need for consent entirely; 2) reconsidering non-heart-beating donors; 3) elective ventilation for organ donation; and 4) accepting organs from anencephalic infants before brain death occurs. All of these proposals raise concerns which are discussed. Those approaches considered to be ethically acceptable and to hold promise for success should be vigorously pursued, beginning with carefully designed pilot studies. Hopefully, such an approach will eventually increase the number of organs available for patients suffering from end-stage organ disease.

Altruism↗
PubMed1997

Cyclophosphamide induced water intoxication in a woman with Sjögren's syndrome.

Water intoxication is a well described complication of high dose intravenous (i.v.) cyclophosphamide therapy combined with forced hydration. Less well known is that water intoxication can develop even after low dose iv cyclophosphamide. To draw attention to this potentially life threatening complication, we describe a woman who developed acute water intoxication after treatment with low dose iv cyclophosphamide for a sensory neuropathy secondary to Sjögren's syndrome. Rheumatologists should be aware of this serious adverse effect of iv cyclophosphamide because this drug is being used increasingly for treatment of a variety of rheumatological diseases. The pathogenesis, clinical characteristics, treatment, and methods for prevention of cyclophosphamide induced water intoxication are discussed.

Antirheumatic Agents↗
PubMed1996

Health insurance for kidney donors: how easy is it to obtain?

Because there is a severe shortage of cadaver organs, living donors are a valuable source of kidneys for patients with end-stage renal disease. One area of concern to many potential donors is their ability to obtain health insurance after donation. To investigate this issue, we surveyed 99 health insurance organizations in the United States, including the 10 largest health maintenance organizations, asking for their views and practices regarding living kidney donors; 44% of these organizations responded. The responses were strikingly uniform and indicate that healthy kidney donors should be able to obtain and maintain health insurance at standard rates. This information should be reassuring for concerned people who are considering donating a kidney.

Humans↗
PubMed1996

Mandated choice for organ donation: time to give it a try.

A severe shortage of organs greatly limits the ability to deliver the miracle of transplantation to people suffering from end-stage organ disease. Contributing to this shortage is a high rate of refusal among families who are asked for permission to remove organs from a recently deceased relative. Mandated choice offers an alternative to obtaining consent from the family by returning control to the individual. This plan would require all adults to record their wishes about posthumous organ donation and would consider those wishes binding. By moving the decision-making process to a relaxed setting and ensuring that a person's wishes would be honored, mandated choice would hopefully take advantage of favorable public attitudes toward donation and thereby facilitate organ procurement. Preliminary research suggests that public commitment to organ donation would increase under mandated choice. A pilot study of this promising proposal should be undertaken.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Do U.S. transplant centers encourage emotionally related kidney donation?

Stimulated by a severe organ shortage and an improving ability to successfully transplant poorly matched donor-recipient pairs, many transplant centers are now willing to accept emotionally related (but genetically unrelated) people (e.g., spouses) as kidney donors. To see whether this practice is encouraged, a survey was mailed to all 209 adult renal transplant centers in the United States. Of the 154 (74%) responding centers, 90% said they accept emotionally related donors and 60% said they actually encourage this practice. Nearly 40% prefer spouses to cadavers, while only 21% prefer friends to cadavers. To further explore the degree to which emotionally related donation is encouraged, a second questionnaire was sent to a sample of centers (n = 51) that support this practice; 94% responded. While only 44% said they encourage the use of friends, nearly all of these preselected centers said they encourage spouses to donate. On the other hand, judging from their stated approach to this issue, only about half of these supportive centers seem to actively encourage emotionally related donation. These data suggest that, overall, at most only about one third of U.S. transplant centers actively encourage spousal donation and at most about one quarter encourage the use of friends. Consistent with these results, emotionally related donors contribute only a small fraction of all kidneys transplanted in this country. If the large potential contribution of emotionally related donors is ever to be realized, transplant centers must go beyond simply accepting such individuals and begin to actively encourage their participation. Medical and ethical considerations strongly support this proposal.

Adult↗