A paper submitted for publication describes a series of children with renal failure who had had kidneys transplanted from commercially acquired donors. The authors of the paper had not carried out the transplants. Indeed, they had been carried out in another country. The authors simply reported what happened to the patients after they returned. The paper, while not of high priority for publication, is acceptable from the scientific point of view. Can it be accepted on ethical grounds? By publishing this article, is the editor giving publicity to a practice which most condemn?
·
Commercial living donors are ethically unacceptable and therefore the results were gathered by unethical acts.
·
If there is a dilemma in the transplantation community regarding commercial donors then one might argue that the paper should be published with an ethical commentary.
·
Any publication might serve to legitimise commercial donors which is intrinsically wrong.
·
The ethics of the sale of organs is unclear and it would be best for the editor to commission an ethical commentary.
·
There was some debate about the validity of the paper itself. It could be rejected on the grounds of scientific validity as there were no data on the donors.
·
In the past it has been easier to reject a paper of this type and forget about it.
·
The ethical “pit” should be defined—for example, were the donors acting of their own free will? Were they prisoners, executed prisoners, children or other groups who could not have been given informed consent?
Conclusion
The editor should ask for further and better particulars of the donors. If these are forthcoming and the paper does not fall into the “pit” then it should be published with an ethical commentary alongside. The editor has the duty of affirmative action to bring the practice to the attention of the international community via an editorial.
Further confirmation was requested but none received. The paper was rejected.