Kidney Paired Donation and the 'Valuable Consideration' Problem: The Experiences of Australia, Canada, and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As organ donation rates remain unable to meet the needs of individuals waiting for transplants, it is necessary to identify reasons for this shortage and develop solutions to address it.The introduction of kidney paired donation (KPD) programs represents one such innovation that has become a valuable tool in donation systems around the world. Although KPD has been successful in increasing kidney donation and transplantation, there are lingering questions about its legality. Donation through KPD is done in exchange for—and with the expectation of—a reciprocal kidney donation and transplantation. It is this reciprocity that has caused concern about whether KPD complies with existing law. Organ donation systems around the world are almost universally structured to legally prohibit the commercial exchange of organs. Australia, Canada, and the United States have accomplished this goal by prohibiting the exchange of an organ for “valuable consideration,” which is a legal term that has not historically been limited to monetary exchange. Whether or not KPD programs violate this legislative prohibition will depend on the specific legislative provision being considered, and the legal system and case law of the particular jurisdiction in question. This article compares the experiences of Australia, Canada, and the United States in determining the legality of KPD and highlights the need for legal clarity and flexibility as donation and transplantation systems continue to evolve.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.065 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".