David Steinberg

Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts, United States

Are you David Steinberg?

Claim your profile

Publications (9)33.85 Total impact

  • David Steinberg
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The participation of an immunologically compatible donor-intended recipient pair in a kidney exchange that is unnecessary for them can significantly increase the number of kidneys available for transplantation. Despite their utilitarian value transplant ethicists have condemned this type of organ exchange as morally inappropriate. An opposing analysis concludes that these exchanges are examples of moral excellence that should be encouraged.
    Transplantation 02/2011; 91(3):257-60. · 3.78 Impact Factor
  • D Steinberg, E A Pomfret
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is argued that organ donation from a patient to the patient's physician is ethically dubious because donation decisions will be inappropriately influenced and the negative public perceptions will result in more harm than good. It is suggested that to protect the perception of the physician-patient relationship, avoid cynicism about medicine's attitude to patient welfare and maintain trust in the medical profession, a new professional boundary should be established to prevent physicians from receiving organs for transplantation donated by their patients.
    Journal of medical ethics 12/2008; 34(11):772-4. · 1.69 Impact Factor
  • David Steinberg
    The Journal of clinical ethics 02/2007; 18(1):12-7. · 0.47 Impact Factor
  • David Steinberg
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In many transplant centers, organ retrieval from altruistic strangers is accepted practice; patients use Internet Web sites and other public media to locate strangers willing to give them an organ. It is argued that altruistic strangers should be permitted to select the recipients of their organs because 1) personal relationships are morally important; 2) it increases the number of available organs; and 3) no one is hurt by the process. Nonetheless, using public media to obtain organs may undermine equity in organ allocation. Organs donated by altruistic strangers do not go necessarily to patients who have the best immunologic match or the most urgent need or who have waited the longest. A publicly chartered organization should be established to coordinate live organ donation, including donation by altruistic strangers. Altruistic strangers should be educated to allocate their donated organs according to a prudent balance of equity and utility rather than their emotional response to a particular patient's plight, identity, or circumstances.
    Annals of internal medicine 09/2006; 145(3):197-203. · 16.10 Impact Factor
  • David Steinberg
    American Journal of Kidney Diseases 01/2005; 44(6):1115-20. · 5.76 Impact Factor
  • David Steinberg
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Kidney donation by young children and the mentally retarded has been supported by court decisions, arguments based on obligations inherent in family relationships, an array of contextual factors, and the principle of beneficence. These justifications for taking organs from people who cannot protect themselves are problematic and must be weighed against our obligation to protect the vulnerable. A compromise solution is presented that strongly protects young children and the mentally retarded but does not abdicate all responsibility to relieve suffering. Guidelines are proposed that prohibit the retrieval of kidneys from young children and the mentally retarded but permit one exception. They would allow retrieval of a kidney when the consequence to a first order relative with whom the donor has a meaningful and valuable relationship is otherwise imminent death. This would be done in accordance with additional guidelines that minimize harm to the donor. Since most patients with end stage renal disease can be maintained on dialysis the need for a kidney to prevent death should be an uncommon occurrence. This compromise is proposed as a solution to a dilemma that exists because two ethical principles are in conflict and one cannot be honored without violating the other.
    Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 02/2004; 25(4):229-41. · 0.78 Impact Factor
  • David Steinberg
    Health Affairs 07/2003; 22(4):184-9. · 4.32 Impact Factor
  • David Steinberg
    The Journal of clinical ethics 01/2003; 14(1-2):18-25. · 0.47 Impact Factor
  • D Steinberg
    The Journal of clinical ethics 02/2001; 12(2):134-40. · 0.47 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

28 Citations
33.85 Total Impact Points


  • 2001–2011
    • Lahey Hospital and Medical Center
      Burlington, Massachusetts, United States