The ethics of the clinical practice of transplanting human organs for end-stage organ disease is a fascinating topic. Who is the "owner" of the transplantable organs of a deceased, brain-dead patient? Who should have a right to receive these organs? Who set the boundaries between a living donor's autonomy and a "paternalistic" doctor? What constitutes a proper consent? These questions are only some of the ethical issues that have been discussed in the last 60 years. All of these ethical issues are intensified by the fact that supply of human organs does not match demand, and that, as a consequence, living-donor organ transplantation is widely utilized. The aim of this article is not to be exhaustive but to present the general ethical principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice as applied to organ transplantation. Moreover, the topic of reimbursement for organ donation is also discussed.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2549-4 | DOI Listing |
Clin Orthop Relat Res
January 2025
Chief, Penn Orthopaedics Foot and Ankle Service, The Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
J Med Internet Res
January 2025
Crisis Text Line, New York, NY, United States.
We appreciate Reierson's thoughtful commentary on our 2019 paper, which described our experiences, ethical process, judgment calls, and lessons from a 2016-2017 data-sharing pilot between Crisis Text Line and academic researchers. The commentary raises important questions about the ethical conduct of health research in the digital age, particularly regarding informed consent, potential conflicts of interest, and the protection of vulnerable populations. Our article focused specifically on the noncommercial use of Crisis Text Line data for research purposes, so we restrict our reply to points relevant to such usage.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Med Internet Res
January 2025
Crisis Text Line, New York, NY, United States.
JMIR Res Protoc
January 2025
Key Populations Program, Center for Public Health and Human Rights, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Background: In South Africa, there is no centralized HIV surveillance system where key populations (KPs) data, including gay men and other men who have sex with men, female sex workers, transgender persons, people who use drugs, and incarcerated persons, are stored in South Africa despite being on higher risk of HIV acquisition and transmission than the general population. Data on KPs are being collected on a smaller scale by numerous stakeholders and managed in silos. There exists an opportunity to harness a variety of data, such as empirical, contextual, observational, and programmatic data, for evaluating the potential impact of HIV responses among KPs in South Africa.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Med Internet Res
January 2025
JMIR Publications, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!