The 20 people who offered to donate their kidney to Chris Bartolo, after his former partner placed an advert offering financial compensation, will not be allowed to give their organ specifically to him, the transplant ethics committee has decided.
This would go against the principle of “distributive justice” adopted by the committee when anonymous persons, who are complete strangers to the patient, offer to be donors.
The donors, however, can contact the hospital to start the process to donate their kidney, which will go to whoever needs it most urgently.
Some 20 donors came forward after Sarah Borg posted an advert on Malta Park, an online trading site, asking for a kidney for 30-year-old Mr Bartolo, who is the father of her son Zac, 10.
Mr Bartolo suffered a double kidney failure just over a year ago and has since undergone several operations.
In the advert she offered €5,000 to the donor and has since insisted that the money was never intended to buy a kidney. The money would cover medical and other expenses incurred by the donor who would have to stop working for about six weeks.
Her actions were not illegal as there is no legislation in place regulating the matter. However, legal amendments in the pipeline might allow for some form of compensation.
The Live Organ Transplant Advisory Committee held an urgent meeting last week to decide whether to allow the potential donors for Mr Bartolo to be processed for transplantation.
The role of the committee is ensure there was no coercion, among other things.
“The committee is convinced that the responses following the recently made appeal for kidney donation were genuine and well motivated… The committee also recognises the fact that the appeal has raised a considerable amount of public awareness to the shortage of available organs, and lauds the potential donors who came forward.
“In the case of potential kidney donations that do not fall within the category of directed-donation (by a relative or friend who know the recipient)… the committee finds no objection for the screening process to go ahead (once all other ethical requirements as set up above have been satisfied) and the donated organ/s going into a pool from which any compatible prospective recipient may benefit, according to his/her needs, and this on the basis or the principle of distributive justice,” the committee said.
The committee, chaired by Prof. Carmel Mallia, said it was bound to follow existing ethical and legal practice which disallowed any compensation.
It pointed out that there were two types of donations allowed – direct donations by a relative or friend who know the patient and altru-istic non-directed donation where the donor has no relationship with the recipient.
“In the case of anonymous donation the committee adopts the principle of distributive justice, where scarce resources (such as organs available for transplantation) are distributed to each person according to the medical need of the potential recipient, irrespective of the socio-economic group that the recipient belongs to,” the committee said.
In light of the present legal situation, it declared itself against any form of financial inducement or advertising.
“The committee feels that condoning advertising for the donation of organs for transplantation will mean that those who have the most compelling stories and the means to advertise their plight tend to be the ones to get the organs, rather than those who are most in need. Justice as fairness prohibits such unethical practice…. In the light of the above considerations, it is the opinion of the committee that this planned transplant should not go ahead,” it concluded.