MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4403539598 · doi:10.3389/ti.2024.13806

Results of Kidney Transplantation from Donors Following Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Benchmarking Science and Ethical Challenge

2024· article· en· W4403539598 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nichon Jansen, Dale Gardiner

Notice bibliographique

RevueTransplant International · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineBenchmarkingKidney transplantationTransplantationNephrologyTransplant surgeryEthical issuesIntensive care medicineFamily medicineInternal medicineEngineering ethicsHepatologyManagement

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The publication of outcome data and process metrics by countries is helpful because it allows other countries who do similar, or wish to do, to have a benchmark to compare against. The finding by Susanna et al that delayed graft function was less in their DCD-V cohort than their DCD-III seems at face value, physiologically self-evident. DCD-III patients typically have had a devastating brain injury and a prolonged ICU stay before donation occurs. While the reasons for euthanasia in the DCD-V cohort were not provided in the paper, they are typically related to either neurodegenerative or psychiatric disorder in the Netherlands. Another expectation might be that warm ischemia time would be longer in DCD-III. This however was not the case and no difference was seen.The comparable longitudinal eGFR and graft function over 10 years compared to both DCD-III and DBD is very reassuring and certainly gives credence to the authors' claim that -medically at least -DCD-V kidneys are a safe extension of the donor pool.Just because you can doesn't mean you should. For many countries in the world, even those with long established deceased donation programs, DCD-V is a step too far. And yet, there is a growing number of advanced economy countries who have, in the last decade, legalized euthanasia. Once they do, whether intended or not, DCD-V follows soon after. Belgium introduced a euthanasia law in 2002 and performed the world's first DCD-V in 2005. The Netherlands legalized euthanasia in 2001, followed by the first DCD-V in 2012. In Spain medical assistance in dying became legal in June 2021, and by 2022, 4.6% of their DCD cases were DCD-V; which exceeds their long established DCD-II program (2.6%) (2). The State of Victoria, Australia, introduced voluntary assistance in dying in 2019, they had their first DCD-V case in 2023 (3). Other States in Australia have followed. In Canada, medical assistance in dying became legal in 2015, and Quebec carried out its first DCD-V in 2017. By 2022 DCD-V represented 14% of Quebec's total deceased donation activity (4).In the Netherlands, 15% of all DCD donors were DCD-V donors in 2023, which, like Quebec, is a substantial contribution to the donor pool. However, that does not mean that in all hospitals in the Netherlands DCD-V is facilitated. A small number of hospitals remain against euthanasia, for example due to religious beliefs. Also, not all general practitioners are willing to grant their patient's request for euthanasia. These patients have the option to apply to the 'Expertise Centre Euthanasia', where independent doctors assess whether euthanasia can be granted, and if so, they are involved in carrying out this request (sometimes including organ donation). Another issue, that still requires attention, is in cases where the request for euthanasia is based on psychiatric suffering. For these patients it is even harder to find a physician (psychiatrist) willing to facilitate euthanasia and a donor hospital where organ donation can take place. Although DCD-V fulfils the patient's explicit wish and has a promising contribution to the donor pool, it is wrong to assume that the practice is universally supported in the Netherlands, especially for the condition of psychiatric suffering.In the UK euthanasia is illegal, though this does not mean individuals are necessarily prosecuted if they provide assistance to their loved one's death. For those in the UK who strongly wish for assisted dying but with clearer legal safeguards for their family and friends, they often make the journey to Dignitas in Switzerland (5). In the UK the Scottish Parliament (6) and the Channel Island of Jersey (7) are both considering the introduction of medical assistance in dying. If it comes, the example from other nations, is that the donation and transplantation community will need to be ready for patients also making requests for DCD-V.Susanna and co-authors paper may provide us with the benchmarking science, the ethical challenge is harder to resolve.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,757
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,322

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,318
Écart entre enseignants0,291 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTransplant InternationalMême sujetOrgan Donation and TransplantationTravaux en français237 207