Commercial cadaveric renal transplant: An ethical rather than medical issue

Chiao Yin Sun, Chin Chan Lee, Chiz Tzung Chang, Cheng Chih Hung, Mai Szu Wu*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal Article peer-review

16 Scopus citations

Abstract

Donor organ shortage is a universal problem. The organ source has been extended to controversial death-penalty outlaws in certain countries. It was claimed that commercial transplant had a worse short-term clinical outcome. The aim of this study is to investigate the long-term outcome of patients receiving commercial cadaveric renal transplant. Seventy-five renal transplant recipients receiving long-term follow-up were included. Thirty-one patients received overseas commercial cadaveric transplant. Forty-four patients had legal domestic transplant in Taiwan. The age of the patients receiving the commercial cadaveric transplant was significantly older than those with legal domestic transplant (commerical vs. legal: 46.1 ± 11.4 vs. 35.6 ± 9.0 yr old, p < 0.001). The renal function estimated by creatinine and 1/creatinine up to eight yr showed no significant difference between the two groups. The graft survivals of the two groups were not different. The mortality rate between the two groups was comparable in 10 yr (91.1% in domestic and 88.9% in overseas). There was no significant difference in de novo viral hepatitis, cytomegalovirus infection, and acute rejection. The clinical outcome of overseas commercial cadaveric transplant was not different from the domestic legal transplant. To stop the unethical procedure, ethnicity and humanity are the major concerns.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)340-345
Number of pages6
JournalClinical Transplantation
Volume20
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 05 2006
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Commercial cadaveric transplant
  • Ethnicity
  • Kidney graft survival
  • Renal transplantation

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Commercial cadaveric renal transplant: An ethical rather than medical issue'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this