Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, MBioethics; Amelie Raz; Rachel Kohn, BA; Michael Rey, BA; David A. Asch, MD, MBA; Peter Reese, MD, MSCE
Acknowledgment: The authors thank Thomas R. Ten Have, PhD, and Mark Cary, PhD, for their assistance in the design and analysis of this study.
Grant Support: By a Greenwall Foundation Faculty Scholar Award in Bioethics (Dr. Halpern), the National Institutes of Health (Dr. Reese; grant K23-078688-01), and internships from the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics (Ms. Raz, Ms. Kohn, and Mr. Rey).
Potential Conflicts of Interest: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M09-2133.
Reproducible Research Statement:Study protocol, statistical code, and data set: Available from Dr. Halpern (e-mail, firstname.lastname@example.org).
Requests for Single Reprints: Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, MBioethics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 724 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6021; e-mail, email@example.com.
Current Author Addresses: Dr. Halpern: University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 724 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6021.
Ms. Raz: Box C-826, 101 North Merion Avenue, Bryn Mawr, PA 19010.
Ms. Kohn: 2400 Chestnut Street, Apartment 3301, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Mr. Rey: Mailbox 534, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 3450 Hamilton Walk, Stemmler 100, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
Dr. Asch: Suite 210, Colonial Penn Center, 3641 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
Dr. Reese: 908 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
Author Contributions: Conception and design: S.D. Halpern, A. Raz, D.A. Asch, P. Reese.
Analysis and interpretation of the data: S.D. Halpern, M. Rey, D.A. Asch, P. Reese.
Drafting of the article: S.D. Halpern, P. Reese.
Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: S.D. Halpern, A. Raz, D.A. Asch.
Final approval of the article: S.D. Halpern, A. Raz, D.A. Asch, P. Reese.
Statistical expertise: S.D. Halpern.
Obtaining of funding: S.D. Halpern.
Administrative, technical, or logistic support: S.D. Halpern, A. Raz.
Collection and assembly of data: R. Kohn, M. Rey.
Halpern SD, Raz A, Kohn R, Rey M, Asch DA, Reese P. Regulated Payments for Living Kidney Donation: An Empirical Assessment of the Ethical Concerns. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:358-365. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-6-201003160-00005
Download citation file:
Published: Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(6):358-365.
Although regulated payments to encourage living kidney donation could reduce morbidity and mortality among patients waiting for a kidney transplant, doing so raises several ethical concerns.
To determine the extent to which the 3 main concerns with paying kidney donors might manifest if a regulated market were created.
Cross-sectional study of participants' willingness to donate a kidney in 12 scenarios.
Regional rail and urban trolley lines in Philadelphia County, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Of 550 potential participants, 409 completed the questionnaire (response rate, 74.4%); 342 of these participants were medically eligible to donate.
Across scenarios, researchers experimentally manipulated the amount of money that participants would receive, the participants' risk for subsequently developing kidney failure themselves, and who would receive the donated kidney.
The researchers determined whether payment represents an undue inducement by evaluating participants' sensitivity to risk in relation to the payment offered or an unjust inducement by evaluating participants' sensitivity to payment as a function of their annual income. The researchers also evaluated whether introducing payment would hinder altruistic donations by comparing participants' willingness to donate altruistically before versus after the introduction of payments.
Generalized estimating equation models revealed that participants' willingness to donate increased significantly as their risk for kidney failure decreased, as the payment offered increased, and when the kidney recipient was a family member rather than a patient on a public waiting list (PÂ < 0.001 for each). No statistical interactions were identified between payment and risk (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.03]) or between payment and income (odds ratio, 1.01 [CI, 0.99 to 1.03]). The proximity of these estimates to 1.0 and narrowness of the CIs suggest that payment is neither an undue nor an unjust inducement, respectively. Alerting participants to the possibility of payment did not alter their willingness to donate for altruistic reasons (PÂ = 0.40).
Choices revealed in hypothetical scenarios may not reflect real-world behaviors.
Theoretical concerns about paying persons for living kidney donation are not corroborated by empirical evidence. A real-world test of regulated payments for kidney donation is needed to definitively show whether payment provides a viable and ethical method to increase the supply of kidneys available for transplantation.
Learn more about subscription options.
Register Now for a free account.
Results provided by:
Copyright © 2016 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.
Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704
Conditions of Use
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only