Non‐directed (altruistic) kidney donation: Altruism or insurance policy?

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionSince non‐directed (altruistic) kidney donors do not stand to benefit from the lengthening and strengthening of a relationship that they intrinsically value, their donations are considered to constitute the most altruistic variety of living kidney donation.MethodologyThis paper uses publicly‐available data to assess the expected value that accrues to the donor of altruistic kidney donation.FindingsCompared to healthy non‐donors, living kidney donors experience only marginally increased absolute risks of poor physical health outcomes, and no difference in important psychosocial health outcomes. Crucially, the chance of requiring a kidney donation is only marginally increased by becoming a living kidney donor. In the United Kingdom, previous living kidney donors that subsequently become in need of any organ donation (not only kidneys) themselves are considered priority patients for these donations. They consequently experience shorter waiting times for these organs and reduced exposure to the inherently harmful effects of dialysis therapy (if a kidney donation is required) compared to non‐donors in need of organ donation. As such, while key data points required to compute an accurate and complete expected value calculation are unavailable, it is likely that the additional risk incurred by becoming a living kidney donor is outweighed by the benefit of being considered a priority patient for the donation of any type of organ in the event that this is needed.ConclusionAccordingly, the expected value of becoming a living kidney donor is likely to be positive, meaning the act of doing so may be considered akin to the taking out of an insurance policy. In the context of non‐directed (altruistic) kidney donation, this may diminish the extent to which such a donation is considered altruistic.