Why an alternate recipient list for heart transplantation is not a form of ageism

K. A. Bramstedt*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Numerous studies have shown that the use of marginal hearts for organ transplantation produces clinically favourable results, however the association of these marginal hearts with a separate list of potential recipients, often the elderly, is ethically disturbing for some transplant facilities. Examination of the outcome data alone is not enough to justify the use of an alternate recipient list (ARL) as an ethical practice. However, upon analysis and reflection on the allocation process and the goals of medicine, the operating principles of medical ethics clearly emerge. Based upon this ethical analysis, an ARL for heart transplantation is not a form of ageism but rather a method of technology stewardship that operates by way of facilitating transplant eligibility to those with the capacity to benefit.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)27-31
Number of pages5
JournalNew Zealand bioethics journal
Volume2
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2001
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Why an alternate recipient list for heart transplantation is not a form of ageism'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this