Ethical and medical dilemmas in paid living kidney donor transplantation

Due to the shortage of deceased and genetically- or emotionally-related living donors, living unrelated paid donor (LURpD) kidney transplantation has been considered; however, this practice may result in medical, ethical and social dilemmas, induce organ trading (commodification), and even criminal activities. Commodification also risks undermining public trust in the transplant system and impeding the development of proper altruistic or deceased donor programs by ignoring altruism, volunteerism, and dignity. However, despite many objections by authoritative organizations, black market practices are involved in up to 10% of all transplants worldwide. The authors strongly discourage any payment or rewards for organ donation, and instead urge the governments of all countries to provide adequate and accessible kidney health care. However, it is an undeniable fact that paid-living donor transplantation is increasing despite all objections, disapprovals and regulations. We feel it as our responsibility not to ignore this uncertain and undesirable practice, but rather to underline the necessity for strict rules and prohibitions to minimize unacceptable medical, social and ethical risks as long as it exists. Furthermore, economic profit, be it direct or indirect, must not be the goal of those involved, and the employment of intermediaries must be avoided entirely. Additionally, the donor should be in a position where not donating has no detrimental effect on his/her future in any way (free agency). In our view, every country has the obligation and responsibility to provide adequate kidney health care and to make kidney transplantation accessible to those in need. This provision is key to stop transplant tourism and commercialization of kidney transplantation. The nephrology community has a duty to establish structures that optimize organ availability within strict ethical limits. The legal position of LURpD varies considerably worldwide. Strictly respecting each country's legislation and local values is mandatory to minimize medical and ethical risks and controversies.