Showing posts sorted by date for query "Josh Morrison". Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query "Josh Morrison". Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, May 26, 2025

Ethical compensation for research participants: an open letter

 Institutional review boards (IRBs) are often faced with the question of whether research participants should or must be compensated, and how much.  In the medical ethics community there is often a presumption that there are ethical reasons not to offer participants too much compensation. This is a very different intuition from the more general notion (embodied e.g. in minimum wage laws) that there are ethical reasons not to offer too little compensation.

I'm one of 64 signers of an open letter about this...


Abadie, R. et al. (2025) ‘Pursuing Fair and Just Compensation for Research Participants: An Open Letter to the Research Ethics Community’, The American Journal of Bioethics, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2025.2506328.
 

"We, the 64 undersigned, from fields including philosophy, law, medicine, policy, public health, patient advocacy, and research ethics, offer this open letter to highlight the growing recognition of the pitfalls of excessive concern over payment to research participants. Experts in the field of research oversight, including institutional review boards/research ethics committees (IRB/RECs), now recognize that for adult participants capable of providing their own informed consent, instances of monetary undue influence are generally quite rare, underpayment is far more common and ethically concerning than overpayment, and that lowering payments threatens justice and fairness without providing substantive protection for participants.

...

"Absent strong evidence that monetary payment will lead to undue influence, it is likely that more harm than good is done by lowering compensation levels for a given study. Research participation generates immense social value, and generous compensation can reflect this value and serve as an important sign of respect and appreciation for participants (Fernandez Lynch et al. Citation2021).

...

"Concern over undue influence through monetary compensation, while well intended, receives outsized attention, even at the expense of other ethical issues. Ultimately, there must be very strong rationale when suggesting such limits for an otherwise approved study, and attempts to limit payment based on the potential for undue influence should be scrutinized especially closely. IRBs/RECs should still keep in mind the amount of time required and burden on participants to ensure at least a minimum standard of compensation is met. At times, they should even require sponsors or investigators to increase compensation amounts when what they are proposing is insufficient. It is high time that the default question shift from “is this payment too much?” to “is this enough?” in clinical trials."

 

Signed by:

Roberto Abadie    Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Kinesiology
Adam L. Anderson    Associate Professor of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis
Emily E. Anderson    Professor of Bioethics, Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine
Andrew Berman    Professor of Medicine, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School
Barbara Bierer    Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and Faculty Director, MRCT Center
François Bompart    Member, INSERM Ethics Committee (France)
Brandon Brown    Professor of Medicine, University of California, Riverside, School of Medicine
Arthur Caplan    Head, Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine
Carolyn Riley Chapman    Lead Investigator/Faculty, Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard
Coalition for Clinical Trial Equity
Alexandra Collins    Assistant Professor of Community Health, Tufts University
Marci Cottingham    Associate Professor of Sociology, Kenyon College
Stephanie Solomon Cargill    Associate Professor of Research Ethics, Albany Medical College
Arlene M. Davis    Professor of Social Medicine, UNC School of Medicine
David DeGrazia    Elton Professor of Philosophy, George Washington University
David Diemert    Professor of Medicine, George Washington University
Anna Durbin    Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Jake Earl    Adjunct Lecturer in Philosophy, Georgetown University
Jake D. Eberts    Member of the Board of Directors, 1Day Sooner
Gunnar Esiason    Head of Patient Engagement & Patient-Centered Innovation, RA Ventures
James A. Feldman    Professor of Emergency Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine
Holly Fernandez Lynch    Associate Professor of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine
Susan S. Fish    Professor, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine
Celia B. Fisher    Marie Ward Doty Endowed University Chair in Ethics and Professor of Psychology
Jill A. Fisher    Professor of Social Medicine, UNC Center for Bioethics
Allison Foss    Executive Director, Myasthenia Gravis Association
Foundation for Sarcoidosis Research
Luke Gelinas    Senior IRB Chair Director, Advarra
Kevin Griffith    Assistant Professor of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University
Marielle Gross    Founder/ceo, de-bi, co; Faculty, Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics
Scott D. Halpern    John M. Eisenberg Professor in Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
Logan Harper    ILD & Sarcoidosis Center, Cleveland Clinic, Assistant Professor of Medicine, CCLCM/CWRU School of Medicine
David A. Heagerty    Associate Director, University of Pennsylvania IRB
Kristin Hermann    Executive Vice President, Strategic Accounts, Scout
W. Ennis James    Associate Professor of Medicine and Sarcoidosis Program Director, Medical University of South Carolina
Steven Joffe    Art and Ilene Penn Professor and Chair of Medical Ethics & Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine
Nancy M. P. King    Emeritus Professor, Wake Forest University School of Medicine
Stephanie A. Kraft    Assistant Professor, Geisinger College of Health Sciences
Walter K. Kraft    Professor, Thomas Jefferson University
Benjamin Krohmal    Assistant Professor, Georgetown University School of Medicine
Emily A. Largent    Associate Professor of Medical Ethics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine
Anne Drapkin Lyerly    Professor of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lazarex Cancer Foundation
Dylan Matthews    Senior Correspondent, Vox
Lindsay McNair    Principal Consultant, Equipoise Consulting
Josh Morrison    President, 1Day Sooner
Joseph Millum    Senior Lecturer, University of St Andrews
Torin Monahan    Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Axel Ockenfels    Professor of Economics at the University of Cologne and Director at the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods in Bonn
Joshua Osowicki    Infectious diseases physician and Team Leader, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
Leah Pierson    MD/PhD candidate, Harvard Medical School; Cohost of the Bio(un)ethical podcast
Jessica Propps    Caregiver Advocate, Foundation for Sarcoidosis Research
Jeanne M. Regnante    Principal, Patient 3i, LLC
David B. Resnik    Bioethicist
Donald Richardson    Cardiovascular Disease Fellow, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Alvin Roth    Craig and Susan McCaw Professor of Economics, Stanford University
Julian Savulescu    Professor of Medical Ethics, National University of Singapore
Scout Clinical    
Peter H. S. Sporn    Professor of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine
Kawsar Talaat    Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Rebecca L. Walker    Professor of Philosophy and of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Margaret Waltz    Research Associate, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Kathryn Washington    Sarcoidosis patient advocate
Sarah A. White    Executive Director, The Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard
Megan M. Wood    Assistant Professor of Communication and Media, Ohio Northern University

 

Friday, November 17, 2023

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, September 22, 2023

Support for hepatitis C human challenge studies, in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology

 Here's a call for action, in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology:

Joint statement in support of hepatitis C human challenge studies by Harvey J Alter, Eleanor Barnes, Mia J Biondi, Andrea L Cox, Jake D Eberts, Jordan J Feld, T Jake Liang, Josh Morrison, Charles M Rice, Naglaa H Shoukry, David L Thomas, Jennifer Van Gennip, Charles Weijer, on behalf of other signatories †, Published:September 20, 2023 DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(23)00314-X

"We, the 121 undersigned, believe that human challenge studies among adult volunteers will be critical in the development of hepatitis C vaccines.

...

"Despite the advent of safe and highly effective direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatments, the ongoing toll of hepatitis C remains high among low-income and middle-income countries and vulnerable populations such as people who inject drugs. Millions of new infections occur annually, outpacing cures in some regions,1 with progress further disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Without a change in strategy and the development of new tools, we will not reach the ambitious goal set out by WHO of elimination of viral hepatitis as a public health threat by 2030. This will require an effective hepatitis C vaccine—“the best insurance for the future”, as highlighted by a recent announcement of the White House national hepatitis C elimination programme.2

...

"Human challenge studies for a hepatitis C vaccine could accelerate vaccine development dramatically. The effort to establish the model and test an initial vaccine candidate could take as little as 3 years. If that candidate fails, subsequent studies to test others could provide evidence of efficacy as quickly as 1 year.

"It is only because of the remarkably effective treatments that we can now consider human challenge studies for hepatitis C. With DAAs, cure rates of people without cirrhosis are reliably over 98%, with highly effective salvage regimens for the few who do not respond to a first course of therapy.5,  6 We are confident that in the era of DAAs, human challenge studies can be done in accordance with the highest ethical and safety standards. Healthy volunteers providing fully informed consent would be infected for at most 6 months before treatment and would be free to go about their lives with the right to request treatment and withdrawal from a study at any time. Acute infection causes no or few symptoms in most, and unlike in most challenge studies, where the risk of transmission necessitates quarantine of participants, the risk of passing hepatitis C to others is very low in day-to-day life.

"The impact of a vaccine would be enormous: reducing transmission, preventing cirrhosis, and most importantly, markedly reducing the rate of liver cancer, the world's second-most deadly cancer in terms of total fatalities.7 The global success of hepatitis B vaccine in achieving these goals exemplifies the importance of an effective hepatitis C vaccine. With the prospect of such a significant advance, we have confidence that people will volunteer to participate in hepatitis C challenge studies, and with such a strong team of experts worldwide, we are confident this approach will lead to the development of a successful hepatitis C vaccine."

**********

Here's the full list of 121 signers of the letter

*********

1Day Sooner has a related web page with some background: https://www.1daysooner.org/hepatitis-c-open-letter

**********

Earlier related posts:

Monday, May 15, 2023

Sunday, January 1, 2023

New York State's Living Donor Support Act (LDSA, S. 1594) was signed by Governor Hochul on Dec. 29

 Frank McCormick forwards this email:

From: Elaine Perlman

Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 5:44 PM

Subject: Governor Hochul Has Signed the Living Donor Support Act!

 "Hello!

I am delighted to inform you all that the New York State's Living Donor Support Act (LDSA, S. 1594) was signed by Governor Hochul today.

 New York is becoming the best state for organ donation!

 Thank you for your advocacy in support of this legislation. The LDSA will save more New Yorkers' lives.

 Waitlist Zero's Executive Director Josh Morrison wrote the legislation. State Senator Rivera from The Bronx and Assembly Member Gottfried from Manhattan sponsored the bill.

 This spring, a team from the NKDO, NKF, DOVE, LiveOn New York, and Waitlist Zero lobbied for the bill's passage in Albany. Soon after, the LDSA was unanimously passed by both houses.

 This new law creates the opportunity for New York's living donors to avoid going into debt to donate. Living donors will be reimbursed for their lost wages and out-of-pocket expenses. New York will be the first state in the country to offer this opportunity for donation to be cost neutral for donors.

 Currently the Federal Government only reimburses when both the recipient and donor make less than 350% of the poverty line (around $47,000). The LDSA will reimburse the lost wages of donors who make up to $125,000 as well as the costs of donation (travel, childcare, etc).

 In addition, the LDSA will ensure that all potential recipients will be educated about transplantation.

 There are currently 8,569 people on New York's transplant wait lists, 7,234 of whom are awaiting a kidney. With the LDSA, we anticipate that far more New Yorkers will benefit from a living organ donation.

Here is the press release.

On Tuesday, January 3rd from 4-5pm ET, we will have a virtual celebration and toast the passage of the LDSA! Here is our zoom link.

Please share this good news far & wide!

Best,

 Elaine

Director, Waitlist Zero "

***********

Because the National Living Donor Assistance Center (NLDAC) is a payer of last resort, the NY law will replace NLDAC for NY donors who do meet the means test, and so it will also allow the NLDAC budget to go further.

********

Update: Frank McCormick writes to alert me that, like the authorization for NLDAC,  the NY State law (https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S1594) "requires that the Program shall be payer of last resort..." I hope that this doesn't turn into a competition to be the payer of last resort in a way that might cause some NY donors to fall between the cracks, and not be reimbursed either by NLDAC or the State of New York.

Thursday, November 10, 2022

Challenge trials for future Covid vaccines are still needed, by Stanley Plotkin and Josh Morrison

 Covid is still with us, new vaccines are needed and will likely continue to be needed into the forseeable future, and the case for human challenge trials to speed selection among promising candidates is stronger than ever.  Two veteran advocates make the case:

Human Challenge Trials Hold Promise for Next-Generation COVID Vaccines— These investigations could accelerate effective development of a pan-coronavirus vaccine as well by Stanley Plotkin, MD, and Josh Morrison, JD November 7, 2022

"Two years ago, the prospect of deliberately infecting fully informed volunteers with COVID-19 to aid in vaccine research and development was controversial. We and many others argued that the risks were justifiable, and the reservations of some bioethicists did not deter nearly 40,000 people from over 160 countries from expressing interest in volunteering for these investigations, called human challenge trials. Yet in the end, while they have been extensively pursued in the U.K.*, there were no such studies in the U.S.

"We have made great strides against COVID-19 illness in the form of vaccination and treatments, but there are still thousands of deaths in the U.S. every week.

...

"The White House hosted a summit on the issue in July, showcasing the myriad ways researchers are going about developing new vaccines. There are hundreds of candidates in early stages around the world, but the resources devoted to COVID-19 vaccine research are a fraction of what they were 2 years ago. Human challenge trials can greatly speed the selection of the most promising in this field of candidates, providing scientific and economic benefits over uniform reliance on large field studies.

...

"The use of human challenge trials offers the greatest promise for testing intranasal vaccines for their ability to reduce infection and transmission. In the case of a live attenuated vaccine, something as simple as regular nasal swabbing can reveal just how much of the live virus is present in the nose over time -- and how much would spread when a patient sneezes, for example.

...

"There are obviously risks to COVID-19 challenge studies, and it was on these grounds that initial proposals for such research faced opposition. However, the risk of death is now lower than it was early on in the pandemic given better immune protection garnered from both vaccination and natural exposure, and various treatments options further reduce the risk.

Of course, long-COVID still looms large, but this risk can also be managed by selecting trial participants at lower risk of serious illness, as more severe COVID-19 illness is correlated with lingering post-COVID symptoms. Ultimately, if COVID-19 becomes endemic, long-COVID may well be a threat to everyone, whether or not they sign up for a challenge trial -- all the more reason we must act quickly to develop vaccines that stop transmission.

"We believe that volunteers are perfectly capable of considering these risks rationally. Those who decide to make a potential sacrifice for the good of humanity should be lauded, not dismissed as naive. (Notably, a study of the nearly 40,000-strong prospective volunteers organized by 1Day Sooner showed that their risk tolerance was the same as a control group, and they were driven primarily by altruistic motivations.)"


"Stanley Plotkin, MD, is professor emeritus in pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, a veteran vaccinologist, and a board member of 1Day Sooner, an organization that advocates on behalf of challenge trial volunteers. Josh Morrison, JD, is co-founder and president of 1Day Sooner, and a founder of Waitlist Zero and the Rikers Debate Project."

********

Earlier:

Monday, June 20, 2022

Report of a SARS-CoV-2 human challenge trial. In Britain.


* Josh Morrison writes:

there are four COVID challenge studies announced or underway in the UK, though only imperial [the study above] has published results. Besides the imperial one, there’s an Oxford reinfection study, 

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-04-19-human-challenge-trial-launches-study-immune-response-covid-19 (interestingly the talk one of our staff saw indicated they were having a difficult time getting any infections in previously infected people even when using doses 1,000 times higher than the infectious imperial dose).

 

There has also been an Imperial delta study that’s recruiting now — 

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/infectious-disease/research/human-challenge/covhic002/register-your-interest/

 

And HVIVO has announced an omicron challenge study, though I’m not sure that will happen. 

https://investors.vaxart.com/news-releases/news-release-details/vaxart-announces-agreement-hvivo-develop-worlds-first-human


Tuesday, October 25, 2022

Josh Morrison profiled in Vox

 Josh Morrison, the founder of WaitlistZero and 1DaySooner, is an unusually energetic and effective effective altruist.   

Here's a profile in Vox:

Josh Morrison took risks for science, and he thinks you can, too. From kidney donations to human challenge trials for Covid-19 vaccines, Josh Morrison shows the vast good any individual can do. By Muizz Akhtar

"Morrison first became familiar with this kind of direct public health participation when he read about kidney donations in the New Yorker when he was a law student in 2009. In the piece, people explained why they gave their kidneys to strangers in need — though there was slight risk to donors, the reward and benefit for the recipients was more than worth it. Two years later, he donated a kidney himself.

...

“The basic logic of my work in general is to try to use a sort of identity politics to get better political decision-making,” Morrison told me. “So with kidney donation, the theory is if kidney donors are more empowered in the political system as a sort of identity group, then the system will treat donors better and that will mean more people donate.”


HT: Frank McCormick

**********

I've mentioned Josh Morrison in many of my posts...

Saturday, July 23, 2022

Ideas to Increase Transplant Organ Donation, in Regulation / SUMMER 2022

 Frank McCormick points out this recent collection of short pieces in the summer issue of Regulation.

Ideas to Increase Transplant Organ Donation, edited by Ike Brannon, in Regulation / SUMMER 2022

Introduction  BY IKE BRANNON

Emulate Israel’s Program of Covering Donors’ Expenses BY JOSH MORRISON AND SAMMY BEYDA

Give Donors a Tax Credit BY SALLY SATEL AND ALAN D. VIARD

Expose OPOs to Competition BY ABE SUTTON

Help People Understand the Benefits of Donation  BY MARIO MACIS

Friday, July 15, 2022

The Future of Living Donor Kidney Transplantation (videos)

On May 7, 2022 the University of Chicago hosted a Symposium on "The Future of Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Evolving National Perspectives in Kidney Transplant "

Philip Held, one of the organizers, has provided the following guide, concluding with a link to an elegant Data Handbook that gives direct access to each talk.

 "A Symposium: The Future of Living Kidney Donor Transplantation

Earlier this year, we presented a virtual symposium on the Future of Living Kidney Donor Transplantation.  A primary focus was on the ethics of rewarding organ donors with an opening presentation by:

 ·       Janet Radcliffe Richards, a philosopher and ethicist from Oxford University.

 Other speakers and topics included:

 ·       Nobel Laureate Alvin Roth Ph.D. of Stanford University who laid out the case for paired kidney donation (aka kidney exchange), the only major technical improvement in transplantation in years.

 ·       Frank McCormick, Ph.D. presented recently published (Value in Health) research showing how the government can completely end the kidney shortage and save more than 40,000 kidney failure patients each year from premature death by rewarding living kidney donors. 

 The Symposium took place on May 7, 2022.  It was hosted by John Fung M.D. Ph.D. at the University of Chicago’s Transplantation and Transplant Institute and was funded by the National Kidney Donation Organization (NKDO) and WaitListZero.

 This Symposium presented a broad education on the subject of living kidney donation, and indeed was presented for Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits by the University of Chicago. 

 The audio-visual recording of the entire University of Chicago’s CME symposium is available, for free. Access is extremely easy and one can access any and all presentations with 3 simple clicks starting with 2 clicks here: Data Handbook."

 If you prefer you can binge on the sessions in order:

Session 1:  The Future of Living Kidney Donor Transplantation

Session 2:  The Future of Living Kidney Donor Transplantation

Session 3:  The Future of Living Kidney Donor Transplantation

My talk, called "Kidney Exchange (and Kidney Controversy)" is the first half hour of the video below of the second of three symposium sessions.


The first session of the symposium is below, starting with an intro by Philip Held, focusing on some of the inequalities that we see in dialysis and transplant, followed by the philosopher Janet Radcliffe-Richards (starting at minute 17:15), and then Sally Satel (at 59:30), and then a round table discussion starting at 1:12.


 
In the discussion I asked Dr. Radcliffe Richards (who has been a tireless advocate of thinking more clearly about the tradeoffs involved in preventing compensation of donors) what experience she could share about when and how she had been successful in convincing people to change their minds.  She replied "I don't regard myself as an expert in mind changing, except with people who are happy to follow arguments."

Session 3 is below, including talks by Martha Gerson, Thomas Peters, Arthur Matas, John Roberts,  and Josh Morrison.



These and other videos have been assembled by NKDO.

Wednesday, May 4, 2022

The Future of Living Donor Kidney Transplants May 7, 2022 (online webinar hosted at U. Chicago)

Yesterday I posted about the increasing incidence and prevalence of end stage renal disease

On Saturday I'll be taking part in a medical education webinar, open to the general public, on avenues to increase the availability of safe, ethical and legal kidney transplants.  Some will find it controversial*, even repugnant, since one of the big topics is the ethics of compensating kidney donors. (I'll be talking about some  of the incremental improvements that have been and can be pursued while that discussion goes on. Some of those have also had to overcome some opposition...)

There's an all-star cast of speakers.

The Future of Living Donor Kidney Transplants

May 7, 2022; Virtual; Admission Is Free (join at the link above)

7AM-10 AM (PDT); 9AM-12Noon (CDT); 10AM-1PM (EDT)


Session 1: Ethics of Gifting or Compensation of Donors

 

 

Topic

 

Presenter (s)

 

Comments

Time (mins.)

Item

Cu

mul.

Ethics of Compensating (“Rewarding”) Donors

Janet Radcliffe Richards

World renown philosopher/ethicist. (Oxford). Book: the ethics of transplants why careless thought

costs lives

 

30

 

30

Questions, Comments, and Recap Session 1

CON: Asif Sharfuddin M.D. FASN FAST PRO: Sally Satel M.D. M.S.

 

30

 

60

 

Session 2: Living Donor Transplant Issues

 

 

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Compensating (“Rewarding” Kidney Donors

Frank McCormick Ph.D.

How the Government Can End the Kidney Shortage and Save More than 40,000 Kidney Failure Patients Each Year by Compensating Living Kidney Donors. Total economic value to kidney recipients is $76B/yr. Net savings to the taxpayers is $7B/yr.

 

 

15

 

 

75

Current Status and Future Developments in Kidney Exchange Programs

Alvin Roth, Ph.D.

Nobel Laurette

Living donor organs are being increasingly allocated by paired and exchange organ programs; This is the only major technical improvement in transplantation in

years;

 

 

15

 

 

90

 

Session 2: Living Donor Transplant Issues Cont’d

 

Decreasing Barriers and Increasing Access for Living Donation

Cody Maynard; Independent Living Donor Advocate (NKDO)

Immediate actions we can take to increase the pool of living donors.

 

 

10

 

 

100

 

Discussion and Recap of Session 2 (John Fung, M.D, Ph.D.)

 

10

 

110

 

Break

 

10

 

120

 

Session 3: More Living Donor Transplant Issues

Experiences of a Living Kidney Donor;

Martha Gershun, MBA

Author of a recent book with J.D. Lantos MD: Kidney to Share.

 

10

 

130

U.S. Public Attitudes Towards Compensating Donors

 

Thomas Peters M.D.

Two peer reviewed studies show that 70% of US population support compensating donors $50K.

 

10

 

140

Risk and Safeguards for Living Donors

Arthur Matas, M.D., Ph.D.

Screening donors is essential. Risks are small but not zero.

 

15

 

155

The Limits of Increased Counts of Deceased Donor Transplants

John P. Roberts M.D.

Ignorance is common: Increasing the Deceased Donor pool is constrained by the limits of brain-

dead donors; <2% of U.S. deaths.

 

10

 

165

WaitList Zero’s role in Living Donation

Josh Morrison J.D.; Founder of WaitList Zero

“Thanks for helping us, we were lost!” comment by a recipient, pointing to the need for education regarding living donors.

10

175

Discussion and Recap Session 3 (Thomas Peters M.D.)

 

10

 

185

Recap and Summary of the Symposium Glenn Chertow M.D., MPH

 

20

 

205

* Part of the controversy is that some advertisements for the webinar were deleted, here are some tweets on the subject:


Tuesday, October 19, 2021

Challenge trials in Britain and (not) in the U.S.

 The NY Times has an excellent piece on Covid vaccine challenge trials, and the different traditions (and repugnance) in Britain and the U.S.

Britain Infected Volunteers With Covid. Why Won’t the U.S.? By Kate Murphy

"In an age of masking, compulsive hand sanitizing and plexiglass dividers, it seems inconceivable that for more than 40 years people enthusiastically signed up — and were often put on a waiting list — to have respiratory viruses, including coronaviruses, dripped into their noses.

"They were volunteers at the Common Cold Unit, set up in 1946 by the British government’s Medical Research Council.

...

"the Common Cold Unit established and refined a model for so-called human challenge studies that paved the way for the first Covid-19 human challenge study just completed in Britain, where young, healthy and unvaccinated volunteers were infected while researchers carefully monitored how their bodies responded.

"Then, as now, there were those who decried deliberately infecting or “challenging” healthy volunteers with disease-causing pathogens. It violates the medical principle of “do no harm.” The trade-off is a unique opportunity to discover the causes, transmission and progression of an illness, as well as the ability to more rapidly test the effectiveness of proposed treatments.

...

"“The key benefit of human challenge studies is that they are controlled — everyone gets the same virus, the same amount and they are in the same environment,” said Dr. Christopher Chiu, professor of infectious diseases at Imperial College London and chief investigator in Britain’s Covid challenge study.

...

"In the United States, the regulatory hurdles to conduct challenge studies mean there are precious few, mostly for finding better treatments for malaria, cholera and influenza. Ethicists and regulators are more comfortable approving clinical trials where subjects are given a treatment, say a drug or vaccine, to see if it helps improve a condition volunteers already have, or could prevent them from developing later.

...

"Dr. Fauci’s office said the institute has no plans to fund Covid-19 human challenge trials in the future. Many bioethicists support that decision. “We don’t ask people to sacrifice themselves for the good of society,” said Jeffrey Kahn, director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. “In the U.S., we are very much about protecting individual rights and individual life and health and liberty, while in more communal societies it’s about the greater good.”

"But Josh Morrison, a co-founder of 1Day Sooner, which advocates on behalf of more than 40,000 would-be human challenge volunteers, argues it should be his and other people’s right to take risks for the greater good. “Most people aren’t going to want to be in a Covid challenge study, and that’s totally fine, but they shouldn’t project their own choices on other people,” he said."


HT: Axel Ockenfels