Search

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/ti.2021.10188.].

Families of organ donors play an important role in the deceased organ donation process. The aim of this study was to gain insight into donor family care by creating an inventory of practice in various European countries. A questionnaire about donor family care and contact between donor families and recipients was developed. Representatives of the organ donor professionals of 15 European countries responded (94%). The donor coordinator plays a key role in care for the donor family. All countries provide information about the donation results to the families, although diminished due to privacy laws. Anonymous written contact between donor families and recipients is possible in almost all countries and direct contact in only a few. Remembrance ceremonies exist in most countries. Half of the respondents thought the aftercare could improve. This first inventory shows that differences exist between countries, depending on the organisation of the donation process, the law and the different role of the professionals. Direct contact between donor families and recipients is rarely supported by the donation organisation. To date there has been limited research about the experience of donor family aftercare and we would urge all donation organisations to consider this as a priority area.

The access of non-resident patients to the deceased donor waiting list (DDWL) poses different challenges. The European Committee on Organ Transplantation of the Council of Europe (CD-P-TO) has studied this phenomenon in the European setting. A questionnaire was circulated among the Council of Europe member states to inquire about the criteria applied for non-residents to access their DDWL. Information was compiled from 28 countries. Less than 1% of recipients of deceased donor organs were non-residents. Two countries never allow non-residents to access the DDWL, four allow access without restrictions and 22 only under specific conditions. Of those, most give access to non-resident patients already in their jurisdictions who are in a situation of vulnerability (urgent life-threatening conditions). In addition, patients may be given access: (i) after assessment by a specific committee (four countries); (ii) within the framework of official cooperation agreements (15 countries); and (iii) after patients have officially lived in the country for a minimum length of time (eight countries). The ethical and legal implications of these policies are discussed. Countries should collect accurate information about residency status of waitlisted patients. Transparent criteria for the access of non-residents to DDWL should be clearly defined at national level.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) has become an accepted practice in many countries and remains a focus of intense interest in the transplant community. The present study is aimed at providing a description of the current situation of DCD in European countries. Specific questionnaires were developed to compile information on DCD practices, activities and post-transplant outcomes. Thirty-five countries completed the survey. DCD is practiced in 18 countries: eight have both controlled DCD (cDCD) and uncontrolled DCD (uDCD) programs, 4 only cDCD and 6 only uDCD. All these countries have legally binding and/or nonbinding texts to regulate the practice of DCD. The no-touch period ranges from 5 to 30 min. There are variations in ante and post mortem interventions used for the practice of cDCD. During 2008-2016, the highest DCD activity was described in the United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Data on post-transplant outcomes of patients who receive DCD donor kidneys show better results with grafts obtained from cDCD versus uDCD donors. In conclusion, DCD is becoming increasingly accepted and performed in Europe, importantly contributing to the number of organs available and providing acceptable post-transplantation outcomes.

It is well known that families frequently overrule the wishes of dying patients who had previously expressed a wish to donate their organs. Various strategies have been suggested to reduce the frequency of these ‘family overrules’. However, the possibility of families overruling a patient’s registered decision not to donate has not been discussed in the medical literature, although it is legally possible in some countries. In this article, we provide an ethical analysis of family overrule of a relative’s refusal to donate, using the different jurisdictions of the UK, Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands to provide some context. Despite some asymmetries between overruling consent and overruling refusal, there are some cases in which donation should proceed despite a recorded refusal to do so.

The complex multi-criteria optimisation problems arising in Kidney Exchange Programmes have received considerable attention both in practice and in the scientific literature. Whereas theoretical advancements are well reviewed and synthesised, this is not the case for practice. We present a synthesis of models and methods applied in present European Kidney Exchange Programmes, which is based on detailed descriptions we created for this purpose. Most descriptions address national programmes, yet we also present findings on emerging cross-national programmes. The synthesis provides a systematic and detailed description of the models and methods the programmes use, revealing important commonalities as well as considerable variation among them. Rather than distilling a single best practice from these results, we find that the variation in models and methods arises because of variation in country characteristics, policies, and ethics. The synthesised state of the art may benefit future national and cross-national initiatives and direct future theoretical contributions within and across the boundaries of the Operations Research discipline.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors are a unique group of patients who do not fulfil the conventional classification of brain death but in whom further resuscitation or treatment is considered futile. Once cardiac arrest and the cessation of circulation has been confirmed, either due to unsuccessful resuscitation or planned withdrawal of treatment they can proceed to organ donation. Donation is performed by rapidly preserving and cooling the organs followed by surgical removal.

The Effect of Differing Kidney Disease Treatment Modalities and Organ Donation and Transplantation Practices on Health Expenditure and Patient Outcomes (EDITH) aims to obtain information on long-term kidney transplant outcomes, long-term health outcomes of living kidney donors and detailed outcomes and costs related to the different treatment modalities of end-stage kidney disease. Nine partners from seven European Union countries will participate in this project.

Millions of people want to donate their organs after they die for transplantation, and many of them have registered their wish to do so or told their family and friends about their decision. For most of them, however, this wish is unlikely to be fulfilled, as only a small number of deaths (1% in the United Kingdom) occur in circumstances where the opportunity to donate organs is possible. Even for those who do die in the "right" way and have recorded their wishes or live in a jurisdiction with a "presumed consent" system, donation often does not go ahead because of another issue: their families refuse to allow donation to proceed. In some jurisdictions, the rate of "family overrule" is over 10%. In this article, we provide a systematic ethical analysis of the family overrule of donation of solid organs by deceased patients, and examine arguments both in favor of and against allowing relatives to "veto" the potential donor's intentions. First, we provide a brief review of the different consent systems in various European countries, and the ramifications for family overrule. Next, we describe and discuss the arguments in favor of permitting donation intentions to be overruled, and then the arguments against doing so. The "pro" arguments are: overrule minimises family distress and staff stress; families need to cooperate for donation to take place; families might have evidence regarding refusal; and failure to permit overrules could weaken trust in the donation system. The "con" arguments are: overrule violates the patient's wishes; the family is too distressed and will regret the decision; overruling harms other patients; and regulations prohibit overrule. We conclude with a general discussion and recommendations for dealing with families who wish to overrule donation. Overall, overrule should only rarely be permitted.

This report deals with organ retrieval procedures in both controlled and uncontrolled DCD, looking at the ethical, legal, and psychosocial aspects during the different phases of the process. A recently published report by the UK Donation Ethics Committee (UKDEC) has served as an important reference document to outline the steps in the controlled DCD patient-donor pathway (Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. UK Donation Ethics Committee. An ethical framework for controlled donation after circulatory death. December 2011). For uncontrolled DCD, the UKDEC pathway description was adapted. At the 6th International Conference in Organ Donation held in Paris in 2013, an established expert European Working Group reviewed the UKDEC reports, which were then considered along with the available published literature. Along this pathway, the crucial ethical, legal, and psychosocial aspects have been flagged, and relevant recommendations have been formulated based on a consensus of the working group.

The aim of the present study was to describe the current situation of donation after circulatory death (DCD) in the Council of Europe, through a dedicated survey. Of 27 participating countries, only 10 confirmed any DCD activity, the highest one being described in Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (mainly controlled) and France and Spain (mainly uncontrolled). During 2000-2009, as DCD increased, donation after brain death (DBD) decreased about 20% in the three countries with a predominant controlled DCD activity, while DBD had increased in the majority of European countries. The number of organs recovered and transplanted per DCD increased along time, although it remained substantially lower compared with DBD. During 2000-2008, 5004 organs were transplanted from DCD (4261 kidneys, 505 livers, 157 lungs and 81 pancreas). Short-term outcomes of 2343 kidney recipients from controlled versus 649 from uncontrolled DCD were analyzed: primary non function occurred in 5% vs. 6.4% (P = NS) and delayed graft function in 50.2% vs. 75.7% (P

Introduction. The goal of the Eurotransplant renal allocation scheme is to provide every patient on the waiting list with a reasonably balanced opportunity for a donor offer. New initiatives were taken in order to maximize donor usage while maintaining a successful transplant outcome. Methods. Two Eurotransplant projects were launched in order to accommodate changes in donor and recipient profiles. A re-addressing of the non-heart-beating donor pool was undertaken and an allocation scheme in which organs from donors aged >65 are allocated to recipients aged >65 [the Eurotransplant Senior Programme (ESP)] was introduced. Results. Especially in The Netherlands, an enormous increase in the number of non-heart-beating donor kidneys has been observed, however with a pace-keeping reduction in heart-beating donors. The organization-wide implementation of the ESP has been successful. The 3 year graft survival rates for these age-matched transplants were as good as the human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched transplants (64 vs 67%) (P=0.4). Conclusion. Within the framework of sound research, the utmost flexibility and creativity is needed to keep or even increase the number of renal transplants when faced with a quantitatively stagnating but qualitatively deteriorating donor pool. Both the non-heart-beating donor protocol and the ESP have proven to be quite successful in achieving this goal without compromising the outcome for the individual end-stage renal disease patient.

Objectives: The role of the European Union in influencing health care policies in member states is of increasing importance. The Eurotransplant Foundation is an organization which provides donor organs to the most suitable transplant recipients. It covers a region of five countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, The Netherlands). As there is a severe shortage of donor organs within its region, registration of so-called non-resident patients on the waiting lists aggravates this shortage. Could European Community law, especially rules on competition, limit Eurotransplant's freedom to introduce a restrictive policy on non-residents? If so, could participating transplant centres or patients initiate legal action against Eurotransplant to stop the execution of such a policy? Methods: Quantitative descriptive data on organ donation and use by the Eurotransplant Foundation during 1994 and 1995, by residents and non-residents. Analysis on basis of economic and legal framework. Results: Solidarity between potential donors and potential recipients is organized in a different manner in an organization such as Eurotransplant as compared to a national organization under national law. National regulations may introduce a restrictive policy for the acceptance of non-resident patients. Eurotransplant — as a matter of its own policy — has to consider international solidarity. The scope of the non-resident issue is dealt with, and it is explained why it is considered to be a problem. On the basis of a discussion of the economic and the legal framework for a non-resident policy, an answer to the question is suggested. Conclusion: It might be possible for Eurotransplant to introduce a restrictive policy on the admission of non-residents without violating the European Community Treaty.