Director, Pediatric Transplantation
Pediatrics (Nephrology)
University of British Columbia / BC Children's Hospital
Exploring the ethical considerations of direct contact in pediatric organ transplantation: A qualitative study
Jordan Wadden1,2, Jordan Hermiston3, Alice Virani4,5, Tom D. Blydt-Hansen6,7, Ranjeet Dhaliwal8, Shelby Gielen8.
1Ethics Department, Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, Whitby, ON, Canada; 2Department of Philosophy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 3Family Services, BC Transplant, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 4Ethics Services, Provincial Health Services Authority, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 5Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 6Department of Pediatrics (Nephrology), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 7Multi-Organ Transplant Program, BC Children's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 8Patient and Family Partner, BC Transplant, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Background: Non-anonymized direct contact between organ recipient and donor families has been explored internationally in the adult context, including the recent development of such a program in British Columbia. However, there is limited discussion about whether direct contact should be extended to pediatric settings due to clinician and researcher concerns of the potential harms to pediatric patients.
Methods: This qualitative project draws on narrative interviews with pediatric recipients, their families, and organ donor families. Interviews were semi-structured and deliberately naive to ensure participant-centred knowledge translation. Interview questions fell into three broad categories: developing context, determining the harms and benefits of direct contact, and identifying needs and safeguards. Interviews were conducted in two stages: those who were further removed from the transplant process occurred first and informed the approach to interviews with those who more recently went through the transplant process.
Results: Twenty-nine individuals participated in twenty in-depth interviews, where some interviews included multiple participants from the same family. Participants were pediatric recipients and families who have aged out and are now in the adult program (n=13), pediatric recipients and families who are still in the pediatric program (n=11), and family members of organ donors (n=5). The study included participants from three major organ systems: kidney (adult n=3, adolescent n=6), heart (adult n=4, adolescent n=2), and liver (adult n=3, adolescent n=6). Eleven recipients indicated they had already met their donor family (n=5) or had learned substantial identifying information about them (n=6). Across all groups, only five participants expressed that direct contact might cause harm or discomfort, while twenty-three indicated they saw significant potential for benefits. Nearly half (n=14) focused instead on the harms to others rather than themselves, and nearly two-thirds (n=20) focused more on the benefits for others than benefits to themselves.
Conclusion: This study indicates that expanding direct contact to the pediatric transplant community may provide more benefits than harms to both recipients and donor families. Likewise, this expansion could take a harm reduction approach to mitigate the effects incurred by those who seek out information even where no direct contact program exists. Therefore, current practices employed in protecting patients and families from harm may have moved beyond reasonable measures. These results suggest a need to revisit assumptions in our practice as clinicians and researchers.
Transplant Research Foundation of British Columbia 2021 Venture Grant.
References:
[1] Albert, P. (1998). Direct contact between donor families and recipients: crisis or consolation? Journal of Transplant Coordination 8(3): 139-144. doi: 10.1177/090591999800800303.
[2] BC Transplant. 2019a. Communicating with transplant recipients. Retrieved: http://www.transplant.bc.ca/Documents/Reg%20forms/BCT%20-%20Contact%20Info%20-%20FOR%20DONOR%20FAMILIES%20-%20Nov2019.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2020.
[3] BC Transplant. 2019b. Communicating with the family of your organ donor. Retrieved: http://www.transplant.bc.ca/Documents/Reg%20forms/BCT%20-%20Contact%20Info%20-%20FOR%20RECIPIENTS%20-%20Nov2019.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2020.
[4] Bolt, S.H., Witjes, M., and van den Ende, B. (2020). Restless Feelings: Desiring Direct Contact After Postmortem Organ Donation. Omega – Journal of Death and Dying. 82(1):42-62. doi: 10.1177/0030222818800207.
[5] Bonomo, Y.A. and Bowes, G. (2001). Putting harm reduction into an adolescent context. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 37(1):5-8. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1754-2001-00623.x.
[6] Brinkmann, S., and Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing 3e. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
[7] Carel, H. (2016). Phenomenology of Illness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[8] Cignarella, A., Ranse, K., Hewitt, J., Opdam, H., Romero, L., and Marshall, A. (2022). Identity disclosure between fonor families and organ transplant recipients: an integrative review of the international literature. Psychology, Health & Medicine. ePub ahead of print. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2022.2050272
[9] Coughlin, K.W. and the Canadian Paediatric Society Bioethics Committee. (2018). Medical Decision-making in paediatrics: Infancy to adolescence. Paediatric Child Health 23(2):138-146. doi:10.1093/pch/pxx127.
[10] Cox, J.D. (1998). Paternalism, Informed Consent and Tuskegee. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 40(1):1-2.
[11] Ellis, C. and Berger, L. (2003). Their story/my story/our story: Including the researcher’s experience in interview research. In Holstein, J.A. and Gubrium, J.F. (Eds.) Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE: 467-493.
[12] Hawk, M., Coulter, R.W.S., Egan, J.E., Fisk, S., Friedman, M.R., Tula, M., and Kinsky, S. (2017). Harm reduction principles for healthcare settings. Harm Reduction Journal 14(70): 1-9. doi:10.1186/s12954-017-0196-4.
[13] Health Care Consent Act (1996) c.2
[14] Hennink, M., and Kaiser, B.N. (2021). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine 114523 [online first access]. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523.
[15] Infants Act (1996) c.223.
[16] Kaba, E., Thompson, D.R., Burnard, P., Edwards, D., and Theodosopoulou, E. (2005). Somebody else’s heart inside me: A descriptive study of psychological problems after a heart transplantation. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 26(6): 611-625. doi: 10.1080/01612840590959452.
[17] Kandal, I. and Merrick, J. (2007). Organ transplants. Contact between the donor family and the recipient. International Journal on Disability and Human Development 6(1): 21-27.
[18] Kimmel, S.D., Gaeta, J.M., Hadland, S.E., Hallett, E., and Marshall, B.D.L. (2021). Principles of Harm Reduction for Young People Who Use Drugs. Pediatrics 147(supp. 2):S240-S248. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-023523G.
[19] Kisch, A.M., Forsberg, A., Fridh, I., Almgren, M., Lundmark, M., Lovén, C., … Lennerling, A. (2018). The Meaning of Being a Living Kidney, Liver, or Stem Cell Donor—A Meta-Ethnography. Transplantation 102(5): 744-756. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002073.
[20] Leslie, K.M. and the Canadian Paediatric Society Adolescent Health Committee. (2008). Harm reduction: An approach to reducing risky health behaviours in adolescents. Paediatric Child Health 13(1):53-56. doi: 10.1093/pch/12.1.53.
[21] Maloney, R. (1998). A reconnection with life: Helping donor families cope after loss. Journal of Personal and Interpersonal Loss 3(4): 335-348. doi: 10.1080/10811449808409709.
[22] Martin, D. (2017, Mar 17). Report on the Community Consultative Forum: Contact between donor families and transplant recipients. Australian Government: Organ and Tissue Authority. Retrieved: https://donatelife.gov.au/sites/default/files/Report%20on%20the%20community%20consultative%20forum.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2020.
[23] Mauthner, O.E., De Luca, E., Poole, J.M., Abbey, S.E., Shildrick, M., Gewarges, M., and Ross, H.J. (2015). Heart transplants: Identity disruption, bodily integrity and interconnectedness. Health 19(6): 578-594. doi: 10.1177/1363459314560067.
[24] Mclean, A. (2009). Autonomy, Informed Consent and Medical Law: A Relational Challenge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511576119.
[25] Rosenbaum, T. (2016, Dec 20). Donors, recipients find hope in organ donation. Great Falls Tribune. Retrieved: https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/life/health-and-fitness/2016/12/20/donors-recipients-find-hope-organ-donation/95661432/. Accessed May 2, 2020.
[26] Sashin, D. (2019, July 15). Families of young heart donor and recipient meet for the first time. Scope: Stanford Medicine. Retrieved: https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2019/07/15/families-of-young-heart-donor-and-recipient-meet-for-the-first-time/. Accessed May 2, 2020.
[27] Tracy, S.J. (2020). Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact 2e. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
[28] Walter, J.K. and Ross, L.F. (2014). Relational Autonomy: Moving Beyond the Limits of Isolated Individualism. Pediatrics 133(supp.1): S16-S23. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-3608D
Lectures by Tom Blydt-Hansen
| When | Session | Talk Title | Room |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Sun-26 10:00 - 11:00 |
Ethical/Psychosocial and Economical Issues | Exploring the ethical considerations of direct contact in pediatric organ transplantation: A qualitative study | Hill Country CD |
|
Sun-26 13:45 - 14:45 |
Kidney 2 | Bye Bye Biopsies? Evaluating clinical implementation of urinary CXCL10/creatinine monitoring in pediatric kidney transplant recipients | Zilker 3-4 |