1

Tainted OrgansTainted Organs

HIV+ and Other Controversial and High-risk HIV+ and Other Controversial and High-risk OrgansOrgans

Robert M. Veatch, PhDRobert M. Veatch, PhDProfessor of Medical EthicsProfessor of Medical Ethics

The Kennedy Institute of EthicsThe Kennedy Institute of EthicsGeorgetown UniversityGeorgetown UniversityWashington, DC 20057Washington, DC 20057

2

Veatch, Robert M. Veatch, Robert M. Transplantation Transplantation Ethics,Ethics, Washington, DC: Georgetown Washington, DC: Georgetown

UniversityUniversity Press, 2000.Press, 2000.

Chapter 16: Tainted Organs: HIV-Positive Chapter 16: Tainted Organs: HIV-Positive and Other Controversial Donorsand Other Controversial Donors

3

Tainted OrgansTainted OrgansHIV+ and Other Controversial OrgansHIV+ and Other Controversial Organs

• Diseased Organ Sources– HIV+– Cancer– HTLV-1– Hepatitis– Cytomegalovirus

• Other Risks– Age– Obese Donors

4

AgeAge• Reluctance to place organs from older donors into

younger patients

• Strange implication: advantage to the elderly– Elderly obtain all their normal allotment– Also obtain those declined for younger patients

• Proposal: Points (negative) for each decade difference in age between donor and recipient– Example of kidney: 20 y.o. donor and 60 y.o. recipient– Four negative points

5

Organ Sources at Risk for HIVOrgan Sources at Risk for HIV

• HIV+ Donors

• Donors testing HIV-, but with High-risk Life-style

6

The Status of RecipientsThe Status of Recipients• Thousands dying for lack of organs

• HIV is not an exclusion criterion for transplant

• Hundreds of organs are rejected as– (a) HIV-positive– (b) HIV sero-negative , but from high-risk donors

7

The Question:The Question:

• Imagine someone who is:– HIV+– Stable, healthy and awaiting an organ– Dying for lack of an organ

• Should such people be offered organs from high-risk donors and would it be rational to accept such an offer?

8

Step 1: The HIV+ RecipientStep 1: The HIV+ RecipientOffered a Sero-negative organOffered a Sero-negative organ

• Risk is modest, but greater than zero– Blood content of organ modest– Chance that donor carries the virus is modest

• Concern that a second viral strain will increase the risk

• Once HIV+ patient decides to be lsited, it is very plausible to accept the offer of the sero-negative organ

9

Step 2: The HIV+ RecipientStep 2: The HIV+ RecipientOffered a Sero-positive organOffered a Sero-positive organ

• Risk is still modest, but greater than zero

• Once HIV+ patient decides to be listed, it may be rather plausible to accept the offer of the sero-positive organ

• Recipient may feel solidarity with the donor

• Recipient may altruistically wish to leave negative organs for negative recipients

10

Step 3: The HIV- RecipientStep 3: The HIV- RecipientShould High-Risk Organs Be Offered?Should High-Risk Organs Be Offered?

• Sero-negative organs from high-risk life-style donors– It may be rational to accept such organs if death is the

alternative– Such patients should be listed with indicator of

willingness to accept such organs• Sero-positive organs

– It may even be rational for negative recipient to accept HIV+ organ

– More plausible to accept other high-risk organs:• Cancer• Hepatitis• CMV

11

A Final Question:A Final Question:If offering high-risk organs is rational, why is there so much If offering high-risk organs is rational, why is there so much

resistance?resistance?

• The possible reluctance of surgeons to handle HIV+ and other high-risk organs

• The reluctance of physicians to be directly responsible for their patients’ disease.– Physicians should have the right to refrain (cf.

Right of physicians to refuse to perform abortion of assist in euthanasia)

– Physicians should be encouraged to facilitate rational transplant of high-risk organs

– It follows from their duty to do whatever will benefit their patients on balance