Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T12:26:46.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Geographic Location and Moral Arbitrariness in the Allocation of Donated Livers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Douglas MacKay  and
Samuel Fitz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The federal system for allocating donated livers in the United States is often criticized for allowing geographic disparities in access to livers. Critics argue that such disparities are unfair on the grounds that where one lives is morally arbitrary and so should not influence one's access to donated livers. They argue instead that livers should be allocated in accordance with the equal opportunity principle, according to which US residents who are equally sick should have the same opportunity to receive a liver, regardless of where they live. In this paper, we examine a central premise of the argument for the equal opportunity principle, namely, that geographic location is a morally arbitrary basis for allocating livers. We raise some serious doubts regarding the truth of this premise, arguing that under certain conditions, factors closely associated with geographic location are relevant to the allocation of livers, and so that candidates' geographic location is sometimes a morally non-arbitrary basis for allocating livers. Geographic location is morally non-arbitrary, we suggest, since by taking it into account, the UNOS may better fulfill its central goals of facilitating the effective and efficient placement of organs for transplantation and increasing organ donation.

Type
Independent Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 47 , Issue 2: Human Subject Protection , Summer 2019 , pp. 308 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Kim, W.R. et al., “OPTN/SRTR 2016 Annual Data Report: Liver,” American Journal of Transplantation Supplementary Volume 1 (2018): 172-253, at 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Ubel, P. A. and Caplan, A. L., “Geographic Favoritism in Liver Transplantation – Unfortunate or Unfair?” New Engand Journal of Medicine 339, no. 18 (1998): 1322-1325; J. F. Childress, “Putting Patients First in Organ Allocation: An Ethical Analysis of the U.S. Debate,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 10, no. 4 (2001): 365-376; D.A. Axelrod, P.A. Vagefi, and J.P. Roberts, “The Evolution of Organ Allocation for Liver Transplantation: Tackling Geographic Disparity Through Broader Sharing,” Annals of Surgery 262, no. 2 (2015): 224-227; and B. Parent and A. L. Caplan, “Fair is Fair: We Must Re-allocate Livers for Transplant,” BMC Medical Ethics 18 (2017): 1-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42 C.F.R. §121.8 (2011).Google Scholar
See Ubel and Caplan, supra note 2; Childress, supra note 2; Axelrod, Vagefi, and Roberts, supra note 2; and Parent and Caplan, supra note 2.Google Scholar
OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, Liver and Intestine Distribution Using Distance from Donor Hospital: Briefing Paper (2018): 1-145, available at <https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/media/2766/liver_boardreport_201812.pdf> (last visited April 11, 2019).+(last+visited+April+11,+2019).>Google Scholar
See Koizumi, N., “Geographic Disparity in Access to Organ Transplant in the United States and Other Western Countries: A Prolegomenon to a Solution,” World Medical & Health Policy 2, no. 2 (2010): 112-131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, National Data, available at <https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/view-data-reports/national-data/> (last visited April 11, 2019).+(last+visited+April+11,+2019).>Google Scholar
See supra note 3.Google Scholar
Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, How Organ Allocation Works, available at <https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/learn/about-transplantation/how-organ-allocation-works/> (last visited April 11, 2019).+(last+visited+April+11,+2019).>Google Scholar
Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, Regions, available at <https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/members/regions/> (last visited April 11, 2019).+(last+visited+April+11,+2019).>Google Scholar
Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, OPTN Policies, 163, available at <https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/governance/policies/> (last visited April 11, 2019).+(last+visited+April+11,+2019).>Google Scholar
See Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, supra note 11. Where these candidates have the same MELD/PELD score, candidates in the OPO's DSA are given priority over those outside of the DSA (though still within the region).Google Scholar
See Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, supra note 11. For candidates with MELD/PELD scores between 15 and 34, candidates in the OPO's DSA are given priority over those outside the DSA (though still within the region).Google Scholar
See Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, supra note 11.Google Scholar
See Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, supra note 11.Google Scholar
See Kim et al., supra note 1, at 205.Google Scholar
See OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, supra note 5, at 1.Google Scholar
See OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, supra note 5, at 6.Google Scholar
See Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, supra note 11.Google Scholar
See OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, supra note 5, at 2-3.Google Scholar
See OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, supra note 5, at 3.Google Scholar
Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999): at 11.Google Scholar
See Rawls, supra note 23, at 63-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Parent and Caplan, supra note 2, at 3.Google Scholar
See Shiffrin, S. V., “Incentives, Motives, and Talents,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 38, no. 2 (2010): 111-142, at 122-123; and D. MacKay, “Immigrant Selection, Health Requirements, and Disability Discrimination,” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 14, no. 1 (2018): 44-82, at 55-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 2000e. (1964).Google Scholar
This is a central legal and moral argument for diversity affirmative action in US college admissions. See Sterba, J. P., Affirmative Action for the Future (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, Charter, available at <https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/media/1506/optn_charter_ii_-_nov_04.pdf> (last visited April 11, 2019).+(last+visited+April+11,+2019).>Google Scholar
Live Donate, Acceptable Ischemic Times: Nebraska Organ Recovery, 2017, available at <http://liveondonate.com/donation-guide/organ/acceptable-ischemic-times> (last visited May 15, 2019).+(last+visited+May+15,+2019).>Google Scholar
See OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, supra note 5, at 6.Google Scholar
See OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, supra note 5, at 6.Google Scholar
See OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, supra note 5, at 22-26.Google Scholar
See OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, supra note 5, at 24.Google Scholar
See OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, supra note 5, at 22. See also Dubay, D.A. et al., “The Impact of Proposed Changes in Liver Allocation Policy on Cold Ischemia Times and Organ Transplantation Costs,” American Journal of Transplantation 15, no. 2 (2015): 541-546; and S.E. Gentry et al., “The Impact of Redistricting Proposals on Health Care Expenditures for Liver Transplant Candidates and Recipients,” American Journal of Transplantation 16, no. 2 (2016): 583-593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organdonor.gov, Find Your Local Organ Procurement Organization, available at <https://organdonor.gov/awareness/organizations/local-opo.html> (last visited April 11, 2019).+(last+visited+April+11,+2019).>Google Scholar
For a promising approach to measuring OPO effectiveness, see Goldberg, D. et al., “Changing Metrics of Organ Procurement Organization Performance in Order to Increase Organ Donation Rates in the United States,” American Journal of Transplantation 17, no. 12 (2017): 3183-3192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, L. and Kindy, K., “New York Organ Collection Agency, Nation's Second-largest, Threated with Closure,” The Washington Post, July 11, 2018.Google Scholar
This principle is similar in structure to a specific version of John Rawls's “difference principle,” namely, the “lexical difference principle.” See Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 72.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. and Suntein, C. R., Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008): at 34-35.Google Scholar
See Thaler and Sunstein, supra note 35, at 175-182; and MacKay, D. and Robinson, A., “The Ethics of Organ Donor Registration Policies: Nudges and Respect for Autonomy,” American Journal of Bioethics 16, no. 11 (2016): 3-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chon, W.J. et al., “When the Living and the Deceased Cannot Agree on Organ Donation: A Survey of US Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs),” American Journal of Transplantation 14, no. 1 (2014): 172-177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladin, K., Zhang, G., and Hanto, D.W., “Geographic Disparities in Liver Availability: Accidents of Geography, or Consequences of Poor Social Policy?” American Journal of Transplantation 17, no. 9 (2017): 2277-2284, at 2278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2278.Google Scholar
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2278.Google Scholar
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2279.Google Scholar
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2279.Google Scholar
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2279.Google Scholar
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2279.Google Scholar
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2279.Google Scholar
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2278-2279.Google Scholar
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2277.Google Scholar
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2281.Google Scholar
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2282.Google Scholar
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2281.Google Scholar
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2279-2281.Google Scholar
For defense of this claim, see MacKay, D. and Danis, M., “Federalism and Responsibility for Health Care,” Public Affairs Quarterly 30, no. 1 (2016): 1-29.Google Scholar
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2282.Google Scholar
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 32, at 2282.Google Scholar
For a good overview of different forms of prioritarianism and the distinction between health-related and global well-being, see Brock, D. W., “Priority to the Worse Off in Health Care Resource Prioritization,” in Rhodes, R., Battin, M., and Silvers, A., eds., Medicine and Social Justice: Essays on the Distribution of Health Care (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012): 155-164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Sharp, D. and Millum, J., “Prioritarianism for Global Health Investments: Identifying the Worst Off,” Journal of Applied Philosophy 35, no. 1 (2015): 112-132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar