In a recent paper titled A Consolidated Biovigilance System for Blood, Tissue and Organs: One Size Does Not Fit All published in the American Journal of Transplantation, researchers discuss the current protocol for organ transplantation. In particular, they compare the systems for keeping track of diseases in donated blood, tissue, and organs. The researchers argue that viable organs should not be strictly screened for diseases, as the benefit of receiving a diseased organ may outweigh the costs of getting a disease.

Recent discussion has surrounded combining surveillance systems for blood, tissue, and organs. The purpose of such systems is to provide a means for tracking disease spread. By consolidating these biovigilance systems, a more convenient and comprehensive system can be formed.

The authors of the article argue that such a system carries inherent flaws as regulations for blood, tissue, and organs are different. Stringent policies exist for diseased blood and tissue samples, but the authors do not think such strict policies should apply to transplantable organs.

We would like to think, should we ever need an organ replaced, that, with some luck, we would receive one. In recent years, however, fewer than 20 percent of patients on organ transplant waitlists actually received a transplant. Furthermore, nearly 10 percent of those on the waitlists became too severely ill or died before they ever had a chance to receive an organ.

Unfortunately, sometimes disease is also spread through transplanted organs. While doctors try to prevent this from happening, the only 100 percent effective method to prevent the spread of disease through organ transplants is to stop them altogether. Obviously, this is not a viable option.

The problem then becomes an issue of proper disease screening. Currently, blood samples and tissue donations are received in sufficient volumes as to allow a high threshold of quality without bottlenecking the overall process. In other words, there is enough blood and tissue that, even if diseased samples are discarded, deman can still be met.

This is not the case for organs. As mentioned, there is an overwhelming unmet need for transplantable organs. Discarding even a single organ has many more repercussions than throwing away blood or tissue.

Therefore, the authors of the article concluded that we should embrace the fact that some disease will be spread through organ transplants. They suggest that a comprehensive biovigilance system should only be used for surveillance, not to determine the viability of organs for transplant. Disease screening procedures for blood and tissue samples should not be the same as for organs.

While nobody wants a diseased organ, the benefits of receiving a diseased organ in some cases can be justified when the alternative is not receiving an organ at all. The benefits of an extended life in many such cases outweigh the cost of living with a disease.