Legislative proposals to help living kidney donors

 Martha Gershun brings us up to date on various proposed pieces of legislation to help organ donors and increase access to transplants.

Legislative Efforts to Support Living Kidney Donors,  by Martha Gershun, Guest Blogger

"As a member of the Expert Advisory Panel to the Kidney Transplant Collaborative, I have been honored to provide input during the development of the organization’s priority legislation, the Living Organ Volunteer Engagement (LOVE) Act.  This legislation would help build a comprehensive national living organ donor infrastructure that would support a national donor education program, create a donor navigator system, ensure appropriate donor cost reimbursement, collect essential data, and improve all aspects of living organ donation across the country, substantially reducing barriers that limit participation today.

Key provisions of the LOVE Act would:

• Provide reimbursement for all direct and indirect costs for living donation, including lost wages up to $2,500 per week.
• Provide life and disability insurance for any necessary care directly caused by donation.
• Modify NLDAC rules so neither the recipient’s income nor the donor’s income would be considered for eligibility.
• Provide for new public education program on the importance and safety of living organ donation.
• Provide for new mechanisms to collect and analyze data about living organ donation to enable evidence-based continuous process improvement.

Numerous other federal proposals are also currently vying for support to address barriers to living donation on a national level.  They include:

Living Donor Protection Act (H.R. 2923, S. 1384)

• Prohibits insurance carriers from denying, canceling, or imposing conditions on policies for life insurance, disability insurance, or long-term care insurance based on an individual’s status as a living organ donor.
• Specifies that recovery from organ donation surgery constitutes a serious health condition that entitles eligible employees to job-protected medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Organ Donor Clarification Act (H.R. 4343)

• Clarifies that reimbursement to living organ donation is not “valuable consideration” (I.e., payment), which is prohibited under the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA)
• Allows pilot programs to test non-cash compensation to living organ donors.
• Modifies NLDAC rules so the recipient’s income would no longer be considered for eligibility.

Living Organ Donor Tax Credit Act (H.R. 6171)

• Provides a $5,000 federal refundable tax credit to offset living donor expenses.

Honor Our Living Donor (HOLD) Act (H.R. 6020)

• Modifies NLDAC rules so the recipient’s income would no longer be considered for eligibility.
• Requires public release of annual NLDAC report.

Helping End the Renal Organ Shortage (HEROS) Act

• Provides a $50,000 refundable federal tax credit over a period of five years for non-directed living kidney donors.

############

And here's one more, from the Coalition to Modify NOTA

Pope Francis calls for a ban on surrogacy

 The Catholic Church has long opposed in-vitro fertilization (IVF), one of the technological tools that allows surrogacy, on the grounds that IVF produces more embryos than are brought to term as babies, and so is comparable to abortion.*  But this week, during his annual "state of the world" foreign policy speech, Pope Francis made clear that he thinks surrogacy should additionally be banned because of the presence of "commercial contracts." 

Here's the story from the National Catholic Register:

Pope Francis Calls Surrogacy ‘Deplorable,’ Calls for Global Ban in Speech to Ambassadors

"Pope Francis called surrogacy “deplorable” and called for a global ban on the exploitative practice of “so-called surrogate motherhood” in a speech to all of the world’s ambassadors to the Vatican on Monday.

“The path to peace calls for respect for life, for every human life, starting with the life of the unborn child in the mother’s womb, which cannot be suppressed or turned into an object of trafficking,” Pope Francis said Jan. 8.

“In this regard, I deem deplorable the practice of so-called surrogate motherhood, which represents a grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child, based on the exploitation of situations of the mother’s material needs. A child is always a gift and never the basis of a commercial contract.”

"The Pope then called on the international community to prohibit the practice of surrogacy universally."

##########

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops reiterates the main point in this quote from its spokesperson:

Statement of USCCB on Holy Father’s Remarks on Surrogacy, January 8, 2024

“As Pope Francis stated, with surrogacy, an unborn child is turned into ‘an object of trafficking’ because it exploits the birth mother’s material needs and makes the child the product of a commercial contract. This is why the Catholic Church teaches that the practice of surrogacy is not morally permissible. Instead, we should pray for, and work towards, a world that upholds the profound dignity of every person, at every stage and in every circumstance of life.”

##########

And here's the story in the NYT:

Francis Urges Ban on Surrogacy, Calling It ‘Despicable’  The pope said that an unborn child must not be “turned into an object of trafficking,” expanding his condemnation of a practice already illegal in Italy and some other European countries.  By Jason Horowitz

"Pope Francis on Monday called surrogate motherhood a “despicable” practice that should be universally banned for its “commercialization” of pregnancy, including the practice among wars, terrorism and other threats to peace and humanity in an annual speech to ambassadors.

...

"Surrogacy is already illegal in Italy and compensated surrogacy is also illegal or restricted in much of Europe. The United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Portugal and several other nations allow surrogacy under certain conditions. Paid surrogacy is legal in some European nations, including Ukraine, Russia and Belarus.

"Surrogate mothers in the United States and Canada are often hired by Europeans, including same-sex couples, seeking to have children..."

##########

Earlier:

Wednesday, April 5, 2023  Surrogacy under siege in Italy

*  Monday, October 4, 2010  From repugnant transaction to Nobel Prize in Medicine

#########

Update: here's the Pope's full speech (in English) from the Vatican Press Office:

Audience with the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See for the exchange of greetings for the New Year, 08.01.2024

Cash for kidneys report in the Telegraph

 The Telegraph has this story, by Samuel Lovett, Nandi Theint,  and Nicola Smith. For some reason I can't copy the headline, but the URL is pretty informative: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/kidney-organ-trafficking-scandal-private-healthcare-india-myanmar/   3 December 2023 • 9:00am

"One of the world’s biggest private hospital groups is embroiled in a ‘cash for kidneys’ racket in which impoverished people from Myanmar are being enticed to sell their organs for profit.

"India’s Apollo Hospitals, a multi-billion dollar company with facilities across Asia, boasts that it conducts more than 1,200 transplants a year, with wealthy patients arriving for operations from all over the world, including the UK.

"Paying for organs is illegal in India, as it is across most of the world, but a Telegraph investigation has revealed that desperate young villagers from Myanmar are being flown to Apollo’s prestigious Delhi hospital and paid to donate their kidneys to rich Burmese patients.

“It’s big business,” one of the racket’s ‘agents’ told an undercover Telegraph reporter. Those involved “work together to get around the obstacles between the two governments,” she added. The hospital “asks the official questions. And on this side they tell the official lies.”

"The scam involves the elaborate forging of identity documents and staging of ‘family’ photographs to present donors as the relatives of would-be patients. Under Indian and Burmese laws, a patient cannot receive an organ donation from a stranger in normal circumstances.

"Apollo Hospitals said it was “completely shocked” by the Telegraph’s findings and would launch an internal investigation. “Any suggestion of our wilful complicity or implicit sanctioning of any illegal activities relating to organ transplants is wholly denied,” it added.

"Professional blood donors" in India (where paying blood donors is illegal)

 India allows only unpaid blood donation, from altruistic donors or from "replacement donors" who are friends or relations of particular patients in need of blood (who must procure it before receiving it). There is a severe blood shortage, some of which is filled by black market "professional" blood donors, who are paid to pretend to be unpaid replacement donors.

Here's a story from the Indian news service Quint:

Out for Blood: Why Are Many Indians Forced To Seek 'Professional Blood Donors'? Although it is illegal, why is there a thriving market for paid blood donors in India?  by ANOUSHKA RAJESH and MAAZ HASAN

"Donating blood in exchange for money was banned in India in 1996. However, paying 'professional blood donors' to meet this requirement is still fairly common.

...

"To see how easy it would be to 'arrange' a paid blood donor, FIT went to one of the busiest government hospitals in Delhi.

...

"All leads – from vendors to patient families and bootleg pharmacists – point us to Ashok (name changed). He sits, surrounded by 4-5 men, and is guarded when we make inquiries.

"He begins with the following line of questioning: 'Where is our patient admitted?  What surgery do they need?  Why couldn't we just get friends and relatives to donate?

"Posing as a patient's friend, the FIT reporter gives him preplanned answers. In the emergency ward.  He had an accident and needs surgery on his leg.  I donated blood a month ago. He has no family here, and everyone else we reached out to has refused.

"Only when he's satisfied with the answers, he says he would be able to 'arrange boys' by the next day, and that it would cost between Rs 3,500 to Rs 4,000.

...

"According to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, India's annual requirement for blood is around 1.5 crore units per year, while in reality, only around 1 crore units are available.

"This gap in supply and demand of blood poses a major public health crisis in the country. For example, around 70 percent of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH)-related deaths in India are due to lack of immediate availability of blood.

...

"The paid donors are generally young boys, between the ages of 20 and 25, from very poor backgrounds," says Dr Dubey. ""This will no doubt be detrimental to their health," he adds. Moreover, if caught, they face the risk of jail time.

"The protocol is to ask every donor a set of questions before we take their blood. "If they seem suspicious, we ask them questions like, 'how are you related to the patient?', 'what is the patient's name?', and 'what surgery are they having?', to sus them out. If we get enough proof, we either defer them, or hand them over to the cops," Dr Priyansha Gupta, PG resident, Public Health, who has worked in Delhi's AIIMS blood bank in the past.

"What, then, happens to the families who desperately need blood when their donors are deferred?

"Dr Dubey says they are referred to the social workers attached to the hospital to get them help.

...

"But you have to understand, blood is a scarce commodity, and there's only so much we have."

##########

Here's a story from the Hindustan Times (in 2022), which begins with some relevant background (before debunking myths that lead to a shortage of voluntary donors):

Common myths on blood shortage in India  "The article is authored by Dr Parth Sharma, researcher, Ranita De, researcher in Lancet Citizen's Commission on Reimagining India’s Health System and Dr Vaikunth Ramesh."

"The shortage of blood products has been a major public health problem in India. It is estimated that nearly 12,000 people lose their lives every single day due to the lack of blood products. Supporting a population of 1.4 billion, the present blood transfusion service is fragmented with a little over 3,700 blood centres of which about 70% are located in eight states only. As of 2020, 63 districts in India do not have a blood centre. Space crunch and a burgeoning population have led to the establishment of health care facilities without blood centres on their premises, which in turn depend on nearby blood or storage centres for access to safe blood.

"Unfortunately, India has one of the largest shortages of blood supplies globally, while several diseases requiring blood transfusions are on the rise.

"A recent study by Joy Mammen, et. al. estimated the shortage to be around 2.5 donations per 1,000 eligible donors which equals a shortage of 1 million units. Blood products are required not only for surgeries but also for patients suffering from various medical conditions causing severe anaemia. At present, the source of donated blood is a combination of voluntary donors and replacement donors. Although professional donors are forbidden by law, they still continue to persist in our system under the guise of replacement donors. Voluntary non-remunerated donors, who donate based on altruism and a sense of doing greater good for the community, unfortunately, account for only 80% of the donors in India.

#######

HT: I was directed to the above links from the Indian posting

India Policy Watch #2: Regulating SoHO  by Pranay Kotasthane, which was in part about the recent move in the EU to further restrict payment for Substances of Human Origin (SoHO), as discussed in

Saturday, November 4, 2023

The EU proposes strengthening bans on compensating donors of Substances of Human Origin (SoHOs)--op-ed in VoxEU by Ockenfels and Roth

Report From a Multidisciplinary Symposium on the Future of Living Kidney Donor Transplantation

 How might we increase the number of lifesaving transplants from living kidney donors? Might we one day be able to reward donors? And what might we do until then, while we wait for something that will eventually replace human organ transplantation?  Here's the published account of last year's symposium.

Thomas G. Peters, John J. Fung, Janet Radcliffe-Richards, Sally Satel, Alvin E. Roth, Frank McCormick, Martha Gershun, Arthur J. Matas, John P. Roberts, Josh Morrison, Glenn M. Chertow, Laurie D. Lee, Philip J. Held, and Akinlolu Ojo, “Report From a Multidisciplinary Symposium on the Future of Living Kidney Donor Transplantation,” Progress in Transplantation  (forthcoming), Online first, Nov 15, 2023 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15269248231212911  (pdf here).

Abstract: Virtually all clinicians agree that living donor renal transplantation is the optimal treatment for permanent loss of kidney function. Yet, living donor kidney transplantation has not grown in the United States for more than 2 decades. A virtual symposium gathered experts to examine this shortcoming and to stimulate and clarify issues salient to improving living donation. The ethical principles of rewarding kidney donors and the limits of altruism as the exclusive compelling stimulus for donation were emphasized. Concepts that donor incentives could save up to 40 000 lives annually and considerable taxpayer dollars were examined, and survey data confirmed voter support for donor compensation. Objections to rewarding donors were also presented. Living donor kidney exchanges and limited numbers of deceased donor kidneys were reviewed. Discussants found consensus that attempts to increase living donation should include removing artificial barriers in donor evaluation, expansion of living donor chains, affirming the safety of live kidney donation, and assurance that donors incur no expense. If the current legal and practice standards persist, living kidney donation will fail to achieve its true potential to save lives.

#######

Links to videos of the symposium presentations are here:

Friday, July 15, 2022

The Future of Living Donor Kidney Transplantation (videos)

The EU proposes strengthening bans on compensating donors of Substances of Human Origin (SoHOs)--op-ed in VoxEU by Ockenfels and Roth

 The EU has proposed a strengthening of European prohibitions against compensating donors of "substances of human origin" (SoHOs).  Here's an op-ed in VoxEU considering how that might effect their supply.

Consequences of unpaid blood plasma donations, by Axel Ockenfels and  Alvin Roth / 4 Nov 2023

"The European Commission is considering new ways to regulate the ‘substances of human origin’ – including blood, plasma, and cells – used in medical procedures from transfusions and transplants to assisted reproduction. This column argues that such legislation jeopardises the interests of both donors and recipients. While sympathetic to the intentions behind the proposals – which aim to ensure that donations are voluntary and to protect financially disadvantaged donors – the authors believe such rules overlook the effects on donors, on the supply of such substances, and on the health of those who need them.

"Largely unnoticed by the general public, the European Commission and the European Parliament’s Health Committee have been drafting new rules to regulate the use of ‘substances of human origin’ (SoHO), such as blood, plasma, and cells (Iraola 2023, European Parliament 2023). These substances are used in life-saving medical procedures ranging from transfusions and transplants to assisted reproduction. Central to this legislative initiative is the proposal to ban financial incentives for donors and to limit compensation to covering the actual costs incurred during the donation process. The goal is to ensure that donations are voluntary and altruistic. The initiative aims to protect the financially disadvantaged from undue pressure and prevent potential misrepresentation of medical histories due to financial incentives. While the intention is noble, the proposal warrants critical analysis as it may overlook the detrimental effects on donors themselves, on the overall supply of SoHOs, and consequently on the health, wellbeing, and even the lives of those who need them. We illustrate this in the context of blood plasma donation.

"Over half a century ago, Richard Titmuss (1971) conjectured that financial incentives to donate blood could compromise the safety and overall supply. This made sense in the 1970s, when tests for pathogens in the blood supply were not yet developed. But Titmuss’ conjecture permeated policy guidelines worldwide, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Although more evidence is needed, a review published by Science (Lacetera et al. 2013; see also Macis and Lacetera 2008, Bowles 2016), which looked at the evidence available more than 40 years after Titmuss’ conjecture, concluded that the statistically sound, field-based evidence from large, representative samples is largely inconsistent with his predictions.

"Getting the facts right is important because, at least where blood plasma is concerned, the volunteer system has failed to meet demand (Slonim et al. 2014). There is a severe and growing global shortage of blood plasma. While many countries are unwilling to pay donors at home, they are willing to pay for blood plasma obtained from donors abroad. The US, which allows payment to plasma donors, is responsible for 70% of the world’s plasma supply and is also a major supplier to the EU, which must import about 40% of its total plasma needs. Together with other countries that allow some form of payment for plasma donations – including EU member states Germany, Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic – they account for nearly 90% of the total supply (Jaworski 2020, 2023). Based on what we know from controlled studies and from experiences with previous policy changes, a ban on paid donation in the EU will reduce the amount of plasma supplied from EU members, prompting further attempts to circumvent the regulation by importing even more plasma from countries where payment is legal. At the same time, a ban will contribute to the global shortage of plasma, further driving up the price and making it increasingly unaffordable for low-income countries (Asamoah-Akuoko et al. 2023). In the 1970s, it may have been reasonable to worry that encouraging paid donation would lead to a flow of blood plasma from poor nations to rich ones. That is not what we are in fact seeing. Instead, plasma supplies from the US and Europe save lives around the world.

"In other areas, society generally recognises the need for fair compensation for services provided, especially when they involve discomfort or risk. After all, it is no fun having someone stick a needle in your arm to extract blood. This consensus cuts across a range of services and professions – including nursing, firefighting, and mining – occupations, most people would agree, that should be well rewarded for the risk involved and value to society. To rely solely on altruism in such areas would be exploitative and would eventually lead to a collapse in provision. Indeed, to protect individuals from exploitation, labour laws around the world have introduced minimum compensation requirements rather than caps on earnings. In addition, payment bans on donors, even if they’re intended to protect against undue inducements, raise concerns about price-fixing to the benefit of non-donors in the blood plasma market. In a related case, limits on payment to egg donors have been successfully challenged in US courts. 1

"In addition, policy decisions affecting vital supplies such as blood plasma should be based on a broad discourse that includes diverse perspectives and motivations. Ethical judgements often differ, both among experts and between professionals and the general public, so communication is essential (e.g. Roth and Wang 2020, Ambuehl and Ockenfels 2017). Payment for blood plasma donations is an example. We (the authors of this article) are from the US and Germany, countries that currently allow payment for blood plasma donations while most other countries prohibit payment. On the other hand, prostitution is legal in Germany but surrogacy is not, while the opposite is true in most of the US. And while Germany currently prohibits kidney exchange on ethical grounds, other countries – including the US, the UK, and the Netherlands – operate some of the largest kidney exchanges in the world and promote kidney exchange on ethical grounds.

"The general public does not always share the sentiments that health professionals find important (e.g. Lacetera et al. 2016). This tendency is probably not due to professionals being less cognitively biased. In all areas where the question has been studied, experts such as financial advisers, CEOs, elected politicians, economists, philosophers, and doctors are just as susceptible to cognitive bias as ordinary citizens (e.g. Ambuehl et al. 2021, 2023). Recognising the similarities and differences between professional and popular judgements, and how ethical judgements are affected by geography, time, and context, allows for a more constructive and effective search for the best policy options.

"In our view, the dangers of undersupply of critical medical substances, of inequitable compensation (particularly for financially disadvantaged donors), and of circumvention of regulation by sourcing these substances from other countries (where the EU has no influence on the rules for monitoring compensation to protect donors from harm) are at least as significant as those arising from overpayment. Carefully designed transactional mechanisms may also help to respect ethical boundaries while ensuring adequate supply. Advances in medical and communication technologies, such as viral detection tests, can effectively monitor blood quality and ensure the safety and integrity of the entire donation process – including the deferral of high-risk donors and those for whom donating is a risk to their health – without prohibiting payment to donors. Even if it is ultimately decided that payments should be banned, there are innovations in the rules governing blood donation that have been proposed, implemented, and tested that would improve the balance between blood supply and demand within the constraints of volunteerism; non-price signals, for instance, can work within current social and ethical constraints.

"As the EU deliberates on this legislation, it is imperative to adopt a balanced, empirically sound, and research-backed approach that considers multiple effects and promotes policies to safeguard the interests of both donors and recipients.

References

Asamoah-Akuoko, L et al. (2023), “The status of blood supply in sub-Saharan Africa: barriers and health impact”, The Lancet 402(10398): 274–76.

Ambuehl, S and A Ockenfels (2017), “The ethics of incentivizing the uninformed: A vignette study”, American Economic Review Papers & Proceedings 107(5), 91–95.

Ambuehl, S, A Ockenfels and A E Roth (2020), “Payment in challenge studies from an economics perspective”, Journal of Medical Ethics 46(12): 831–32.

Ambuehl, S, S Blesse, P Doerrenberg, C Feldhaus and A Ockenfels (2023), “Politicians’ social welfare criteria: An experiment with German legislators”, University of Cologne, working paper.

Ambuehl, S, D Bernheim and A Ockenfels (2021), “What motivates paternalism? An experimental study”, American Economic Review 111(3): 787–830.

Bowles S (2016), “Moral sentiments and material interests: When economic incentives crowd in social preferences”, VoxEU.org, 26 May.

European Parliament (2023), “Donations and treatments: new safety rules for substances of human origin”, press release, 12 September.

Iraola, M (2023), “EU Parliament approves text on donation of substances of human origin”, Euractiv, 12 September.

Jaworski, P (2020), “Bloody well pay them. The case for Voluntary Remunerated Plasma Collections”, Niskanen Center.

Jaworski, P (2023), “The E.U. Doesn’t Want People To Sell Their Plasma, and It Doesn’t Care How Many Patients That Hurts”, Reason, 20 September.

Lacetera, N, M Macis and R Slonim (2013), “Economic rewards to motivate blood donation”, Science 340(6135): 927–28.

Lacetera, N, M Macis and J Elias (2016), “Understanding moral repugnance: The case of the US market for kidney transplantation”, VoxEU.org, 15 October.

Macis M and N Lacetera (2008), “Incentives for altruism? The case of blood donations”, VoxEU.org, 4 November.

Roth, A E (2007), “Repugnance as a constraint on markets”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(3): 37–58.

Roth A E and S W Wang (2020), “Popular repugnance contrasts with legal bans on controversial markets”, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117(33): 19792–8.

Slonim R, C Wang and E Garbarino (2014), “The Market for Blood”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 28(2): 177–96.

Titmuss, R M (1971), The Gift Relationship, London: Allen and Unwin.

Footnotes: 1. Kamakahi v. American Society for Reproductive Medicine, US District Court Northern District of California, Case 3:11-cv-01781-JCS, 2016.

Why living kidney donors in England should be financially compensated

 Here's an article suggesting why England should pilot a program to compensate kidney donors.  Perhaps the argument is generalizable to other countries as well...

Rodger, Daniel, and BonnieVenter,  A fair exchange: why living kidney donors in England should be financially compensated. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-023-10171-x

Abstract: Every year, hundreds of patients in England die whilst waiting for a kidney transplant, and this is evidence that the current system of altruistic-based donation is not sufficient to address the shortage of kidneys available for transplant. To address this problem, we propose a monopsony system whereby kidney donors can opt-in to receive financial compensation, whilst still preserving the right of individuals to donate without receiving any compensation. A monopsony system describes a market structure where there is only one ‘buyer’—in this case the National Health Service. By doing so, several hundred lives could be saved each year in England, wait times for a kidney transplant could be significantly reduced, and it would lessen the burden on dialysis services. Furthermore, compensation would help alleviate the common disincentives to living kidney donation, such as its potential associated health and psychological costs, and it would also help to increase awareness of living kidney donation. The proposed system would also result in significant cost savings that could then be redirected towards preventing kidney disease and reducing health disparities. While concerns about exploitation, coercion, and the ‘crowding out’ of altruistic donors exist, we believe that careful implementation can mitigate these issues. Therefore, we recommend piloting financial compensation for living kidney donors at a transplant centre in England."

They set the stage in their Introduction:

"In 2019, the Human Tissue Act 2004 (HT Act) was amended to allow England to adopt an opt-out system of organ donation, which was subsequently passed as The Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Act 2019 and implemented in May 2020. This amendment aims to change the way donor consent is given for transplantable organs and tissues. Its intention is to increase the number of organs available for transplantation to save lives and improve the quality of life of those on the wait list. It was estimated by the United Kingdom (UK) Government that this amendment would save 700 lives per year (Dyer 2019). Despite these intentions, this amendment is unlikely to make a significant difference to the number of available organs.

"Currently, there is no definitive evidence to suggest that merely adopting an opt-out system will increase the pool of available organs (Etheredge 2021). Nevertheless, even if the pool of organs were to increase, it is not necessarily a panacea. Spain, though not strictly an opt-out system because it does not have an opt-out register (Etheredge 2021), is considered the gold-standard system for organ transplantation. But despite their success, Spain still has an insufficient number of organs, a growing kidney transplant wait list, and patients still die waiting for a transplant (Crespo et al. 2021). Kidney transplant wait lists continue to increase despite improving infrastructure, education, and the adoption of opt-out systems. Because only around 1% of people who die each year in the UK are eligible to donate their organs (NHS Blood and Transplant, 2022), it is becoming increasingly necessary to consider alternative approaches to increase the number of available organs for transplant."

Markets, Virtues and Ethics

 Do markets complement virtues, or sideline them?  Here's another entry into that discussion.

Reese, A., Pies, I. Solidarity Among Strangers During Natural Disasters: How Economic Insights May Improve Our Understanding of Virtues. J Ethics (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-023-09460-7

"Abstract: The renaissance of Aristotelian virtue ethics has produced an extensive philosophical literature that criticizes markets for a lack of virtues. Drawing on Michael Sandel’s virtue-ethical critique of price gouging during natural disasters, we (1) identify and clarify serious misunderstandings in recurring price-gouging debates between virtue-ethical critics and economists. Subsequently, (2) we respond to Sandel’s call for interdisciplinary dialogue. However, instead of solely calling on economics to embrace insights from virtue ethics, we prefer a two-sided version of interdisciplinary dialogue and argue that virtue ethics should embrace economic insights. In particular, we argue that if virtue ethics is to preserve its social relevance under modern conditions, it should re-conceptualize its notion of virtue and re-evaluate the self-interested but effective—and in this sense solidary—help among strangers via markets as virtuous rather than devaluate it as greed, that is, as vicious price gouging.

...

"Most forms of virtue ethics share a central concern for the moral character of a person, the development of excellence, and an emphasis on avoiding vices and pursuing virtues. This means that in essence, the virtue ethics perspective focuses on good intentions and intended consequences. In contrast, modern economics fosters a systems approach to situational incentives and thus shifts the perspective to focus on the unintended consequences of intentional actions.

...

" Roth (2007) acknowledges repugnance and other kinds of assumed moral inappropriateness as real constraints on market design. He takes moral feelings seriously and proposes market arrangements that do not evoke such feelings. For example, many people experience a feeling of unease with the idea of being able to buy and sell kidneys, which is currently possible for Iranians in the Islamic Republic of Iran. By designing in-kind kidney exchanges, Roth has shown ways to facilitate market transactions that operate entirely without money and, as such, do not evoke repugnant reactions (Leider and Roth 2010; Roth 2016). Surely, there are still too many people desperately waiting for a kidney. However, the implementation of in-kind exchanges has saved lives. It has helped a significant number of people obtain a kidney that would have obtained none without such a system. In line with Roth, we take the virtue argument seriously. However, we choose a longer time horizon where the assumed moral inappropriateness is no longer a given constraint on market design but becomes, at least in principle, a variable.

...

"Sandel insists on deciding case by case whether we should give the virtue of (probably less effective) selfless help precedence over the assumed repugnance of (probably more effective) self-interested help via markets, or vice versa.

...

"Reassessments of social practices are not uncommon throughout history. Most people today perceive the practices of charging interest rates, dueling, and paying opera singers for their performance differently than their ancestors. 

Blood use in the U.S., in JAMA

 Here are a collection of articles, some of which suggest that we may in the not so distant future face a shortage of whole blood in the U.S., the need for which is so far filled by uncompensated donors (unlike the need for plasma, which is presently filled by compensated donors...).  One issue is that apparently ambulance companies aren't easily compensated for beginning transfusion on the way to the hospital, which could save lives.

Original Investigation Caring for the Critically Ill Patient Red Blood Cell Transfusion in the Intensive Care Unit Senta Jorinde Raasveld, MD; Sanne de Bruin, MD, PhD; Merijn C. Reuland, MD; et al. "RBC transfusion was common in patients admitted to ICUs worldwide between 2019 and 2022, with high variability across centers in transfusion practices." Editorial: Precision in Transfusion Medicine ; Matthew D. Neal, MD; Beverley J. Hunt, MD "blood transfusion practice has come a long way, but further efforts toward precision medicine are required to ensure that patients receive the most effective components. These products should be matched to patients as individuals who have unique antigens and a variable host response, and how to use the appropriate blood components in different clinical settings must be understood." Caring for the Critically Ill Patient Small-Volume Blood Collection Tubes to Reduce Transfusions in Intensive Care: The STRATUS Randomized Clinical Trial Deborah M. Siegal, MD; Emilie P. Belley-Côté, MD, PhD; Shun Fu Lee, PhD; et al. Caring for the Critically Ill Patient Emergency Department Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta in Trauma Patients With Exsanguinating Hemorrhage: The UK-REBOA Randomized Clinical Trial Jan O. Jansen, PhD; Jemma Hudson, PhD; Claire Cochran, MSc; et al. Editorial: Contemporary Adjuncts to Hemorrhage Control ; Samuel A. Tisherman, MD; Megan L. Brenner, MD Caring for the Critically Ill Patient Early and Empirical High-Dose Cryoprecipitate for Hemorrhage After Traumatic Injury: The CRYOSTAT-2 Randomized Clinical Trial Ross Davenport, PhD; Nicola Curry, MD; Erin E. Fox, PhD; et al. Editorial: Contemporary Adjuncts to Hemorrhage Control; Samuel A. Tisherman, MD; Megan L. Brenner, MD Special Communication Red Blood Cell Transfusion: 2023 AABB International Guidelines Jeffrey L. Carson, MD; Simon J. Stanworth, MD, DPhil; Gordon Guyatt, MD; et al. Earn CME credit Viewpoint From Product to Patient—Transfusion and Patient Blood Management Matthew A. Warner, MD; Linda Shore-Lesserson, MD; Carolyn Burns, MD "Recent years have also exposed vulnerabilities in blood inventories. As the most prominent example, the COVID-19 pandemic led to cancellations of many community-based and mobile blood collections, culminating in the declaration of a national blood crisis by the American Red Cross for the first time in history. In response, the American Medical Association, in partnership with the American Hospital Association and American Nurses Association, issued a joint statement in January 2022 describing the worst blood shortage in more than a decade and urging blood donation from all eligible persons. Not long after, the AABB, in collaboration with 17 leading US health care and blood collection organizations, launched the Alliance for a Strong Blood Supply to track and coordinate information and public communications about blood inventories and explore mechanisms to improve blood supply resilience." The Bloody Transfusion Problem John B. Holcomb, MD; William K. Hoots, MD; Travis M. Polk, MD "Preventable death after injury is a national crisis. Worldwide, injury accounts for more deaths than malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV combined and is increasing.1 Trauma is largely a condition of young people and is the leading cause of life-years lost between 1 and 75 years of age, and costs to the US are estimated at $4.2 trillion a year.2 As is always the case, lessons learned on recent battlefields have improved civilian care, and the most impactful intervention has been the increased use of blood products as a primary resuscitation fluid. "During the past decade several large, prospective, multicenter, randomized, federally funded studies have improved outcomes and changed practice.3,4 Transfusing blood as early as possible to patients with hemorrhagic shock saves lives, and fewer patients die from exsanguination when receiving a balanced transfusion of platelets, red blood cells, and plasma or whole blood. This is true in the hospital but is especially so in the prehospital setting, where blood products decrease mortality from 33% to 23%.4 When all indicated blood products are available and given early, deaths due to hemorrhage decrease and care is cost-effective. However, of the 2045 hospitals to which the American Red Cross supplied blood components in 2019, 33% did not routinely have platelets ready to transfuse to bleeding patients, and more than 78% of those hospitals are in a rural setting.4 Emergency medical services (EMS) agencies and hospitals that do not have all blood products immediately available cannot provide optimal care. Unfortunately, the blood products required to save lives are not uniformly available to all persons, and implementation of these proven lifesaving interventions is uneven, largely because of supply and policy reasons. "To remedy this disparity, we believe there are 3 significant hurdles to overcome: (1) enabling a reliable strategy for insuring an adequate blood product supply by developing new shelf-stable blood products and by providing greater financial support for donor blood collection and processing; (2) insuring adequate reimbursement for current and new blood products in the hospital setting and removing the limitation of prehospital provider scope of practice and ability to bill for all blood products; and (3) sustaining consistent and appropriate research funding for trauma studies of hemorrhagic shock in both pediatric and adult populations.  ... "Blood collection and processing centers are operating at a loss because remuneration has not kept pace with ever-increasing costs of regulatory required infectious disease testing. ... "More than 55 000 additional donors will be required for just the prehospital blood program implementation.6 Increasing the blood supply will require novel solutions combining remuneration for donors, increased reimbursement for blood collection centers, modern efforts to recruit younger donors, and streamlined regulatory and financial reimbursement pathways for new blood products that are shelf stable at room temperature for years. ... "scope of practice, reimbursement barriers, and the inability to bill for transfusions provided in air or ground ambulances are significant obstacles to the widespread availability of prehospital blood programs." Redefining Blood Donation—Path to Inclusivity and Safety Pampee P. Young, MD, PhD; Paula Saa, PhD Video: Gay and Bisexual Men Can Now Donate Blood—Why This Matters "The journey to establish equitable blood donation policies can be likened to the myth of Theseus navigating the Labyrinth. Just as Theseus ventured into the complex maze to save Athenians from the Minotaur, the blood industry has been navigating the intricacies of research, regulation, and public sentiments to secure a safe blood supply and equitable policies. With the advancements in testing and the changing policies as our guiding thread, we are dedicated to ensuring fairness, equality, and safety, led by evidence and a deep commitment to humanity." Editorial Precision in Transfusion Medicine Matthew D. Neal, MD; Beverley J. Hunt, MD Contemporary Adjuncts to Hemorrhage Control Samuel A. Tisherman, MD; Megan L. Brenner, MD Medical News & Perspectives Could Universal Donor Blood Be Made in the Laboratory? Bridget M. Kuehn "In the face of chronic national and international blood supply shortages, scientists are renewing efforts to achieve the holy grail of transfusion—laboratory-made universal donor blood." JAMA Revisited The Status of Blood Transfusion "Originally Published September 29, 1923 | JAMA. 1923;81(13):1114- 1115." JAMA Patient Page Blood Donation Kristin Walter, MD, MS Video: Gay and Bisexual Men Can Now Donate Blood—Why This Matters Video Gay and Bisexual Men Can Now Donate Blood—Why This Matters

Pakistan police bust organ trafficking ring --transplants were carried out in private homes

 Outlawing compensation for donors doesn't end black markets for kidneys from living donors, but may succeed in driving them out of hospitals, and making them increasingly dangerous and black.

The BBC has the story:

Pakistan police bust organ trafficking ring that took kidneys from hundreds By Rachel Russell

"Eight members of an organ trafficking ring in north-east Pakistan have been arrested, police say.

"The ring's alleged leader, Fawad Mukhtar, is accused of extracting the kidneys of more than 300 people and transplanting them into rich clients.

...

"At least three people died from having their organs harvested in this way, authorities said.

...

"The transplants were carried out in private homes - often without the patient knowing, the chief minister of Punjab province Mohsin Naqvi said.

"A car mechanic is said to have worked as Mr Mukhtar's surgical assistant and helped lure vulnerable patients from hospitals.

"The kidneys were then sold for up to 10 million rupees (£99,000; $120,000) each, Mr Naqvi added.

...

"The commercial trade of human organs was made illegal in Pakistan in 2010.

"The punishment for those caught includes a decade-long jail term and huge fines in the hope that this will stop sales to overseas clients by exploitative doctors, middlemen, recipients and donors.

"However, there has been a rise in organ trafficking in the country as people struggle with low wages and a poor enforcement of the law."

HT: Jlateh Vincent Jappah