A truly "undesignated" or "non-directed" donation is without any conditions about the possible recipient, other than (from what I understand) that: (1) a transplant center listed the potential recipient on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) national list of potential recipients; and (2) by so listing the person, the transplant center has determined that the person is medically able to undergo the transplant surgery and treatment of anti-rejection medicines after the operation; and (3) (usually, but not always) the recipient has been listed for a longer rather than shorter time. By law and UNOS regulation, the transplant center does not consider any other factor -- not gender, race, religion, social status or history or “worthiness,” economic status, whether the person’s own behavior “caused” or “contributed to” the renal failure, other behavior, etc.
That law and those regulations were developed in a widespread revulsion to a practice when dialysis was first developed with a quite limited number of dialysis machine available. In at least one city, an anonymous committee (called the “God” committee or similar by a Life Magazine article about one such screening committee) included those
other factors, not just clear medical factors, to decide who would be put on a dialysis machine -- and those not put on dialysis would die of their renal failure. (As I would say about all human institutions, I cannot say that EVERY transplant center ALWAYS follows those regulations and NEVER considers those other factors.)
I was, like Fr. Pat, a non-directed donor. As a physician, I medically cared for all people who came to me without regard to those other factors. I also had been (and continue to be) a frequent blood donor, in which my blood is given to people who need it for whatever reason, including (for instance) people attempted suicide by shooting themselves, may be heroin addict or murderer or …, etc. I explicitly told the center in which I was going to donate a kidney, that I did not care at all who received it so long as the person medically needed it and was a match -- any race, with or without any physical or mental or development disability (e.g., a person with Downs Syndrome), regardless of personal behavior, etc. I also knew that my donation of one kidney would move everyone on the UNOS recipient list up one notch to receive a kidney.
As Fr. Pat and Clark pointed out, being a non-directed donor to
start a chain initiates several donations, not just one’s own, thus affecting more people than just one recipient. (I donated before chains really began.) To be listed as eligible to receive a kidney by a chain, the potential recipient has to have one factor more than the three listed above: the potential recipient has to have a person who is willing to donate a kidney (and has been found medically healthy enough to donate) but is immunologically incompatible with the intended donor -- and thus will donate her or his kidney to someone else in the chain so that (incompatible) originally-intended recipient receives a kidney by the chain process.
Also as Clark pointed out, not everyone is willing to be a non-directed donor, and accept that one’s kidney may go to a recipient whose own behavior “contributed to” the recipient’s renal failure, or who may not take as good “care” of the transplanted kidney as the donor would like. Moreover, as with any person considering being a living organ donor, there is no guarantee that the donated kidney will “take” or function at all, or function for more than a few months to 1-2 years. And finally, there is no guarantee that the donor will remain healthy and donate without serious, long-term, health complications or even death. Yes, the majority of us donors do well after donating and a recovery period of variable duration. But not all of us.
I wish you the best as you consider all these issues.
Those issues were not easy for any of us -- both directed and non-directed donors -- to consider, either.