Journals / Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi / 2011 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 1

Psychiatric assesment in living donation

Canlıdan organ naklinde ruhsal değerlendirme

Pages
84–89
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These were firstly to ensure donor’s psychological healthy and competence and to ensure voluntarism.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Although the success of living organ donation continues to grow with improved survival, immuno-supression and surgical technical advancement, the long-term physical and psychological consequences are not established for living donors.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Living donors are confronted with major operation without any potential health benefit in liver transplantation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These were firstly to ensure donor’s psychological healthy and competence and to ensure voluntarism.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Although the success of living organ donation continues to grow with improved survival, immuno-supression and surgical technical advancement, the long-term physical and psychological consequences are not established for living donors. Living donors are confronted with major operation without any potential health benefit in liver transplantation. Despite the importance of donor safety, neither the international pre-transplant guidelines, standards about the living liver donor selection, nor post-transplant donor database are not available. We have tried to recommend a donor selection criteria in liver transplantation. These were firstly to ensure donor’s psychological healthy and competence and to ensure voluntarism.

Özet

Canlıdan organ nakli immünosupresan ilaçlar ve cerrahi yöntemlerdeki gelişmelerle alıcıların yaşam sürelerinde belirgin uzamaya yol açmasına karşın, canlı vericilere ilişkin uzun dönem ruhsal ve fiziksel veriler henüz yoktur. Bu alandaki en önemli konu vericinin sağlığının güvenliği olmasına karşın, vericilerin değerlendirilmesinde iki ana noktada eksiklikler bulunmaktadır. Birincisi, nakil öncesi verici seçiminde tüm merkezlerce ortak olarak kabul edilmiş, üzerinde anlaşılmış hiçbir standart ölçüt olmamasıdır. İkincisi, vericileri nakil sonrası düzenli olarak izleyen herhangi bir merkezin ve güvenilir bir veri tabanının olmamasıdır. Bu yazıda canlıdan organ nakli uygulamasındaki sorunlara ve canlı vericilerin ruhsal değerlendirilmelerinde dikkat edilmesi gereken noktalara değinilecektir. Canlı verici değerlendirilmesinde kapı ölçütleri öncelikle vericinin ruhsal açıdan sağlıklı ve medeni haklarını kullanabilir olması ile vericinin gönüllüğüdür.

🔖

Cite This Article

NOYAN, M. A., ÖNEN, Ö. S., ELBİ, H., ÇETİN, Ö. (2011). Psychiatric assesment in living donation. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 1, 84–89. https://ajindex.com/articles/355954

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Sutherland DER. Presidental address to The Transplantation Society: Accomplishments, ethics, and scientific perspectives. Transplantation 2005; 79:1000-1007
  2. Organ ve Doku Nakli Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği.
  3. Daar AS. Strangers, intimates, and altruism in organ donation. Transplantation 2002; 74:424-426
  4. Kranenburg LW, Visak T, Weimar W, Zuidema W, de Klerk M, Hilhorst M, et al. Starting a crossover kidney transplantation program in the Netherlands: Ethical and psychological considerations. Transplantation 2004;78:194-197
  5. Simmons RG, Anderson CR. Related donors and recipients: Five to nine years post-transplant. Transplant Proc 1982; 14:9-12
  6. Sharma VK, Enoch MD. Psychological sequel of kidney donation: a 5-10 years follow-up study. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1987; 75:264-267
  7. Schrover L, Streem S, Boparai N, Duwiak K, Noeick AC. The psychosocial impact of donating a kidney: long-term follow-up from urology based centre. J Urol 1997;157:1596-1601
  8. Johnson EM, Anderson JK, Jacobs C, Suh G, Humar A, Suhr BD, et al. Long-term follow-up of living kidney donors: quality of life after donation. Transplantation 1999; 67:717-721
  9. Papachristou C, Walter M, Dietrich K, Danzer G, Klupp J, Klapp BF, et al. Motivation for living-donor liver transplantation from donor’s perspective: An in-depth qualitative research study. Transplantation 2004; 78:1506-1514
  10. Miyagi S, Kawagishi N, Fujimori K, Sekiguchi S, Fukumori T, Akamatsu Y, et al. Risk of donation and quality of donors’life after living donor liver transplantation. Transplant Int 2004; 18:47-51
  11. Lee SH, Jeong JS, Ha HS, No MJ, Hong JJ, Kwon JS, et al. Decision-related factors and attitudes toward donation in living related liver transplantation: Ten-year experience. Transplantation Proc 2005; 37:1081-1084
  12. Cronin DC, Siegler M. Ethical issues in living donor transplantation. Transplantation Proc 2003; 35:904-905
  13. Neuberger J, Price D. Role of living liver donation in United Kingdom. BMJ 2003; 327:676-679
  14. Abougergi MS, Rai R, Cohen CK, Montgomery R, Solga SF. Trends in adulth-to-adulth living donor liver transplant organ donation: the Johns Hopkins experience. Prog Transplant 2006; 16:28-32
  15. Walter M, Papachristou C, Pascher A, Danzer G, Neuhaus P, Klapp BF, et al. Impaired psychosocial outcome of donors after living donor transplantation: A qualitative case study. Clin Transplant 2006; 20:410-415
  16. Trotter JF, Hill-Callahan MM, Gillespie BW, Nielsen