Organ and tissue donation
Communication Between Organ Donor Families and Recipients: A Definitely Controversial Subject

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2008.02.033Get rights and content

Abstract

In transplant centers, few topics are more controversial than communication between organ donor families (ODF) and recipients (RE). The Organ Procurement Organizations and transplant centers have felt obliged to protect the confidentiality and interests of ODF and RE. However, some authors have reported favorable effects of contact between ODF and RE. This study sought to investigate the current situation of the communication between ODF and RE from the viewpoint of transplanted patients (n = 50) and waiting transplant patients (n = 50) at a Brazilian University Hospital, ODF (n = 10), physicians from transplant centers (n = 50), as well as the opinion of the general population of a Brazilian city (n = 100). This work was developed as a survey whose questions related to the issue of communication between ODF and RE. The results showed that the majority of transplanted patients (82%) and patients awaiting transplant (60%) wanted to meet ODF to express their gratitude for receiving the organ. Likewise, ODF (67%) wanted to have a meeting with recipients, which allowed them to confirm the benefit of their donation. The general population was also favorable (66%) to ODF and RE communication. In contrast, the physicians (74%) were opposed to the ODF and RE contact. They affirmed that direct contact could lead to serious emotional conflicts or attempts of material involvement. One believes that decisions concerning the contact between ODF and RE would have to be determined by the involved parties. The transplant team could analyze the requests case by case, but ODF and RE must have the right to make the final decision.

Section snippets

Patients and Methods

The present study investigated the current situation of communication between ODF and RE from the viewpoint of renal transplant patients (n = 50) and awaiting renal transplant patients (n = 50) at our University Hospital, ODF from OPO/Ribeirão Preto (n = 10), physicians from 25 Brazilian transplant centers (n = 50), as well as the opinion of the general population of a Brazilian city with 500,000 inhabitants (n = 100).

This work was developed through field research in which a specific

Results

The demographic characteristics of the groups are shown in Table 1. The results revealed that the majority of the transplanted patients (78%) and waiting patients (86%) would like to meet the ODF, despite the possible risk of being asked some kind of financial assistance later on. The main motivation has been the desire to express their gratitude for receiving the organ and for having opportunity of a new life as well as getting information about the organ origin with ODF. The majority of the

Discussion

Organ donation is a conceptually complex subject, since human tissues and organs are extremely valuable to the recipient, the donor, and the ODF. In a study of 242 ODF, Batten and Prottas2 realized that the most serious problem concerning tissue and organ donation is the lack of answers (return) from the recipients. Lewino et al3 reported that the majority of the ODF and RE wish to have a direct contact.

Considering the wish of ODF to check the benefits of the transplant, as well as the desire

References (4)

  • P. Albert

    Direct contact between donor families and recipients: crisis or consolation?

    J Transpl Coord

    (1998)
  • H.L. Batten et al.

    Kind strangers: the families of organ donors

    Health Aff

    (1987)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (18)

  • Standing on Both Sides: Analysis of a Transplant Coordinator's Ethical Position Between the Recipient and the Donor's Family

    2022, Transplantation Proceedings
    Citation Excerpt :

    A survey of liver recipients in Belgium [36], where the law requires anonymity of both sides and prohibits contact, found that as many as 90% of the recipients expressed dissatisfaction at being denied the opportunity to thank their benefactor. Conversely, Ono et al [17] found that 74% of transplant coordinators were against contact, motivated by concern for the turbulent emotions it evoked. However, donor families and recipients reject this attitude, claiming that the coordinator's duty is to mediate for them; this means, at the least, providing anonymous information about the other side, and may even stretch to arranging face-to-face meetings, and that such mediation is essential for the success of their interactions [37,38].

  • Canadian Society of Transplantation Members' Views on Anonymity in Organ Donation and Transplantation

    2015, Transplantation Proceedings
    Citation Excerpt :

    Whereas 71% felt that organ recipients and donor families should only communicate anonymously, 47% felt that identifying information could be included in correspondence between consenting recipients and donor families. Two previous studies have examined physicians' views on anonymity [8,17]. In a Brazilian study on cadaveric kidney donation, 74% of physicians favored anonymity, citing emotional and/or psychological setbacks if communication were permitted [8].

  • The experiences of family members of deceased organ donors and suggestions to improve the donation process: a qualitative study

    2022, CMAJ. Canadian Medical Association Journal
    Citation Excerpt :

    Family members who want but do not receive information about the transplantation outcomes experience more stress throughout their grief as well as uncertainty about their decision to donate.35 Our study confirms that for some family members, a lack of information about transplantation outcomes added stress to their bereavement and grief.30,31 We did not evaluate whether there were differences in the views of subgroups, such as family members of pediatric compared with adult donors, and we did not approach families who decided not to agree to donation.

View all citing articles on Scopus

Viviane C. Ono received a research grant from Bioethics Center of the CREMESP. This research was supported by FAEPA.

View full text