A parent's point of view on the American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement: Children as hematopoietic stem cell donors
Greg H. Revera,H. Frangoul
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.23029
2011-04-01
Pediatric Blood & Cancer
Abstract:The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has published a statement regarding pediatric patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) [1]. The policy recommended new standards that are likely to significantly impact both pediatric stem cell transplant physicians and parents. We wanted to present a parent’s perspective regarding the new policy. Mr. Greg Revera’s oldest son was diagnosed with severe aplastic anemia. Soon after the diagnosis, each of his three other children, ranging in ages from 2 to 5 years, was tested for a potential HLA match. Mr. Revera and his wife stressed to each of their children that ‘‘brothers help brothers,’’ and that a family has its own set of obligations, one of which is to look to the betterment of the whole, often at individual sacrifice. They explained to their younger sons that one of them might be able to help their older brother by being a bone marrow donor. Each was asked: If you can help, will you? Each responded in the affirmative; the Reveras’ 5-year-old son was a perfect match. During the period before the bone marrow harvest, the procedure was explained to the younger brother in a manner that his parents felt was acceptable and not overwhelming. The other sons were also given roles and responsibilities to assist the family in the months that followed. Mr. Revera has shared his personal story because of the recently announced AAP policy statement regarding children as HSC donors. It is concerning to him that the policy could negatively impact patients needing a HSCT, prospective minor donors, and their families. His view is that most parents, with the aid of the transplant doctors and primary care physicians, are capable of understanding, appreciating, and making informed decisions regarding the health and well being of prospective minor donors. His concern is that the policy is based on a few extreme, isolated cases and that the proposed policy makes a blanket assumption that parents and doctors alike are too conflicted to objectively determine whether a minor may or may not be a marrow donor. In so doing, it is Mr. Revera’s opinion that the policy seeks to remove from the process the individuals whom the law charges with responsibility (the parents or guardians) and substitutes an unknown Donor Advocate. It is realized that the risks of bone marrow donation should not be taken lightly, but it can be argued that the risks are relatively minor and that parents consistently put their children in situations with similar risks of injury. The AAP correctly references that the risks of many organized childhood sports exceed the risks of HSC donation. Yet because of the minor risk associated with HSC donation, the AAP has announced a policy that Mr. Revera feels can potentially invade parental rights and increase the overall costs of pediatric HSCT. Mr. Revera is concerned, that contrary to the AAP’s intent, the policy will fail to provide adequate ethical guidance to physicians except for in the clearest of cases. As an attorney, Mr. Revera recognizes the enormous impact the AAP’s policy statement creates. Policy statements can quickly become the standard of care for physicians. If physicians are held to this standard, parents and patients will have no choice but to follow it. And while parents may have the choice to select the transplant physician, they will have no choice in selecting the Donor Advocate, a person who will do a psychological evaluation of their healthy child. Such selection will be done without the consent of the parent and perhaps in opposition to the parent. While one may debate the extent to which the policy treads on parental rights, one cannot deny that the policy impacts those rights. Yet the AAP has failed to take into account parental comment by way of study, survey, or otherwise. And while the AAP cites the great benefits that a Donor Advocate can bring about in the explanation of the process and the lessening of emotional burden on the donor, most pediatric transplant centers counsel families extensively prior to the procedure. While able to appreciate the three cited case examples of minors who should not have been donor candidates, these cases are both extreme and uncommon [2–4]. Using such cases to determine the policy will undoubtedly have unintended consequences. Situations do not always present themselves in clear fashion, and rules made with the ill-conceived notion that they do will ultimately lead to poor decisions. The AAP should recognize the same here. Most often, the policy will have to deal with the shades of gray such as the case where siblings are not as close as most parents would like, or perhaps the case where a teenage child who is ill never developed a close personal relationship with a younger sibling simply because the teenager has been sick. This gray area is vast and problematic. It is defined by the borders of two statements from the AAP: