ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2025
An Even Fairer Exchange: Further Reasons Why Living Kidney Donors in England Should Be Financially Compensated.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rodger and Venter have proposed a monopsony system in which the National Health Service (NHS) in England, as the single buyer, allows living kidney donors to opt-in to receive £35,000 tax-free financial compensation while preserving the right to donate without such compensation. This approach aims to alleviate the severe and growing shortage of kidneys available for transplant in England and is projected to generate substantial economic savings for the NHS. This paper sets out to strengthen their proposal by: (1) presenting updated figures on the increasing kidney transplant wait list in England to highlight the urgency for intervention; (2) detailing the rigor of the existing donor evaluation process to mitigate concerns about exploitation and coercion in compensated living donation; (3) outlining the various kinds of living kidney donation and the U.K. Living Kidney Sharing Scheme, to demonstrate that the proposal's projected economic benefits are likely to be underestimations; (4) suggesting five modifications to the proposal that do not significantly alter its underlying structure; and (5) providing additional arguments against the major objections to such proposals-that financial compensation is exploitative, coercive, and likely to "crowd out" altruistic donors-and showing how the five suggested modifications could strengthen the proposal by bolstering it against those objections. The paper strengthens existing arguments for a pilot project of financial compensation for living kidney donors in England.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.