Non-heart-beating organ donation: personal and institutional conflicts of interest

While procurement of organs from donors who are not "brain dead" does not appear to pose insurmountable moral obstacles, the social practice may raise questions of conflict of interest. Non-heart-beating organ donation opens the door for pressure on patients or families to forgo possibly beneficial treatment to provide organs to save others. The combined effects of non-heart-beating donation and organ shortages at major transplant centers brought about by the 1991 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) local-use organ allocation policy created potential conflicts, including the fact that candidates for organs become potential donors far more frequently than previously. Hospitals with a major emphasis on transplantation have economic and academic interests that may have been hurt by the relative organ shortage. Some may view non-heart-beating organ donation as a way to restore weakened programs and thus unconsciously compromise recognition of problems associated with non-heart-beating donation.     

Procuring organs from a non-heart-beating cadaver: a case report

Organ transplantation is an accepted therapy for major organ failure, but it depends on the availability of viable organs. Most organs transplanted in the U.S. come from either "brain-dead" or living related donors. Recently organ procurement from patients pronounced dead using cardiopulmonary criteria, so-called "non-heart-beating cadaver donors" (NHBCDs), has been reconsidered. In May 1992, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) enacted a new, complicated policy for procuring organs from NHBCDs after the elective removal of life support. Seventeen months later only one patient has become a NHBCD. This article describes her case and the results of interviews with the health care team and the patient's family. The case and interviews are discussed in relation to several of the ethical concerns previously raised about the policy, including potential conflicts of interest, the definition of cardiopulmonary death, and a possible net decrease in organ donation. The conclusion is reached that organ procurement from non-heart-beating cadavers is feasible and may be desirable both for the patient's family and the health care providers.     

Perish and publish: non-heart-beating organ donation and unduly iterative ethical review

In the expanding repertoire of practices designed to increase the supply of organs for transplantation, non-heart-beating cadaver organ donation has generated an ongoing debate in the literature. The continuing stream of articles is disquieting in part because it documents a troubling "trial-and-error ethics" approach to the formulation of organ procurement policy, and because it raises serious questions about the reasons that the development of this policy is being mediated by published communication. In the light of concerns about the implicit support and credibility that professional publications give to organ procurement policies, restraint in publishing articles about non-heart-beating organ donation as well as in devising such policies is strongly advocated.     

Potential conflicts of interest generated by the use of non-heart-beating cadavers

The non-heart-beating cadaver donor procurement process might come in conflict with the organ sharing system by diverting organs from potential recipients. It might also have a negative effect on public attitudes about transplantation. The process could start society down a slippery slope leading to extending donor criteria. Some of these scenarios are merely theoretical, but the procedure should be monitored to avoid such problems.     

Donation after circulatory death: burying the dead donor rule

Despite continuing controversies regarding the vital status of both brain-dead donors and individuals who undergo donation after circulatory death (DCD), respecting the dead donor rule (DDR) remains the standard moral framework for organ procurement. The DDR increases organ supply without jeopardizing trust in transplantation systems, reassuring society that donors will not experience harm during organ procurement. While the assumption that individuals cannot be harmed once they are dead is reasonable in the case of brain-dead protocols, we argue that the DDR is not an acceptable strategy to protect donors from harm in DCD protocols. We propose a threefold alternative to justify organ procurement practices: (1) ensuring that donors are sufficiently protected from harm; (2) ensuring that they are respected through informed consent; and (3) ensuring that society is fully informed of the inherently debatable nature of any criterion to declare death.     

Procuring organs from a non-heart-beating cadaver: commentary on a case report

Procurement of organs from non-heart-beating cadaver donors raises concerns. Standards for optimal patient care during withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy are evolving and continue to be debated and studied. Consensus on specific procedures and methods has not been attained, however, and protocols for the procurement of organs from patients following the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies may compromise the evolving standards and harm the patient and the attendant family. In addition, there is little evidence to suggest that such protocols will significantly increase the number of organs procured. "Non-heart-beating cadaver" protocols that do not give comprehensive attention to optimal patient/family care at the time of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy ought not to be endorsed.     

The Ohio study in light of national data and clinical experience

The Siminoff, Burant, and Youngner study in Ohio is strikingly consistent with data from a national study. Both suggest that there might be significant public acceptance of future policies that violate the dead donor rule, or that further extend the boundary between life and death to include brain-damaged patients short of "brain death." Experience with donation suggests that many individuals would donate their loved ones' organs when they have concluded that the brain injury is not survivable, even if all the criteria for "brain death" are not met. It would be very helpful to have research on those who have gone through the real-life clinical situation. Based on the findings of this study and the increasing demand for organs, it may be appropriate for public policy to allow for ways to increase organ procurement from individuals who are not fully "brain dead" beyond the current method of procurement after cardiac death, but any change in this area should go slowly and with significant public input.     

Non-heart-beating donors of organs: are the distinctions between direct and indirect effects & between killing and letting die relevant and helpful?

This essay analyzes the principle of double effect and, to a lesser extent, the distinction between killing and letting die in the context of the Pittsburgh protocol for managing patients who may become non-heart-beating donors or sources of organs for transplantation. It notes several ambiguities and unresolved issues in the Pittsburgh protocol but concludes that neither the principle of double effect nor the distinction between killing and letting die (with the prohibition of the former and the allowance of the latter under some circumstances) erects insurmountable obstacles to the implementation of the protocol. Nevertheless, the requirement of the principle of double effect that the intended good effects outweigh the unintended side effects necessitates careful attention to the probable overall impact of the proposed policy on organ procurement, particularly because public mistrust plays such a significant role in limiting the number of organ donations.     

Some Must Die

The transplantation and procurement of human organs has become almost routine in American society. Yet, organ transplantation raises difficult ethical and psychosocial issues in the context of “controlled” death, including the blurring of boundaries between life and death, self and other, healing and harming, and killing and letting die. These issues are explored in the context of the actual experiences of organ donors and recipients, brain death, the introduction of non‐heartbeating donor protocols, and the increasing reliance on living donors. The author draws on a thematic analysis of the way that organ transplantation is presented in the media, films, and science fiction and on his clinical experience as a psychiatrist working with transplant patients, their families, and the nurses and physicians who care for them.     

Death and organ procurement: public beliefs and attitudes

Although "brain death" and the dead donor rule--i.e., patients must not be killed by organ retrieval--have been clinically and legally accepted in the U.S. as prerequisites to organ removal, there is little data about public attitudes and beliefs concerning these matters. To examine the public attitudes and beliefs about the determination of death and its relationship to organ transplantation, 1351 Ohio residents >18 years were randomly selected and surveyed using random digit dialing (RDD) sample frames. The RDD telephone survey was conducted using computer-assisted telephone interviews. The survey instrument was developed from information provided by 12 focus groups and a pilot study of the questionnaire. Three scenarios based on hypothetical patients were presented: "brain dead," in a coma, or in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Respondents provided personal assessments of whether the patient in each scenario was dead and their willingness to donate that patient's organs in these circumstances. More than 98 percent of respondents had heard of the term "brain death," but only one-third (33.7%) believed that someone who was "brain dead" was legally dead. The majority of respondents (86.2%) identified the "brain dead" patient in the first scenario as dead, 57.2 percent identified the patient in a coma as dead (Scenario 2), and 34.1 percent identified the patient in a PVS as dead (Scenario 3). Nearly one-third (33.5%) were willing to donate the organs of patients they classified as alive for at least one scenario, in seeming violation of the dead donor rule. Most respondents were not willing to violate the dead donor rule, although a substantial minority was. However, the majority of respondents were unaware, misinformed, or held beliefs there were not congruent with current definitions of "brain death." This study highlights the need for more public dialogue and education about "brain death" and organ donation.     

Why we must leave our organs to others

Organ procurement presents several ethical concerns (from what constitutes acceptable criteria for death to issues involved in specifically designating to whom an organ can be given), but none is more central than the concern for what are appropriate means for acquiring organs. The following discussion attempts a different perspective on the issue of organ procurement by arguing that, rather than appealing to our charitable consciences or our pocketbooks, relinquishing our organs after death in this day and age is, in fact, obligatory for most people. Each of us is pressed by the growing demand for our organs should we die "rightly," and that desperate need has risen to such a level that not to release our organs for transplantation would constitute a serious moral wrong.     

Development of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center policy for the care of terminally ill patients who may become organ donors after death following the removal of life support

In the mid 1980s it was apparent that the need for organ donors exceeded those willing to donate. Some University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) physicians initiated discussion of possible new organ donor categories including individuals pronounced dead by traditional cardiac criteria. However, they reached no conclusion and dropped the discussion. In the late 1980s and the early 1990s, four cases arose in which dying patients or their families requested organ donation following the elective removal of mechanical ventilation. Controversy surrounding these cases precipitated open discussion of the use of organ donors pronounced dead on the basis of cardiac criteria. Prolonged deliberations by many committees in the absence of precedent ultimately resulted in what is, to our knowledge, the country's first policy for organ donation following elective removal of life support. The policy is intricate and conservative. Care was taken to include as many interested parties as possible in an effort to achieve representative and broad based support. This paper describes the development of the UPMC policy on non-heart-beating organ donation.     

Dying but not killing: donation after cardiac death donors and the recovery of vital organs

Michael Potts, Paul A. Byrne, and David W. Evans are critical of donation after cardiac death (DCD). Contrary to the authors' assertion that the removal of vital organs is the proximate cause of death, the eventual fulfillment of the neurological criteria of death is solely dependant on the rate of brain cell death in the absence of circulation. Consistent with the "dead donor rule," DCD is not the cause of death.There are also procedural mechanisms to address the potential conflicts of interest that concern the authors. Rather than being prohibited, DCD may be an ethically justifiable exception to the rule that organ donors must be dead prior to organ recovery.     

Why We Must Leave Our Organs to Others

Organ procurement presents several ethical concerns (from what constitutes acceptable criteria for death to issues involved in specifically designating to whom an organ can be given), but none is more central than the concern for what are appropriate means for acquiring organs. The following discussion attempts a different perspective on the issue of organ procurement by arguing that, rather than appealing to our charitable consciences or our pocketbooks, relinquishing our organs after death in this day and age is, in fact, obligatory for most people. Each of us is pressed by the growing demand for our organs should we die “rightly,” and that desperate need has risen to such a level that not to release our organs for transplantation would constitute a serious moral wrong.     

The Institute of Medicine's report on non-heart-beating organ transplantation

In December 1997, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report on medical and ethical issues in the procurement of non-heart-beating organ donors. This report had been requested in May 1997 by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). We will here describe the genesis of the IOM report, the medical and moral concerns that led the DHHS to sponsor it, the process of producing it, and its conclusions. The analyses, findings, and recommendations of the report are also reviewed, in particular the central issues that led to suggestions for policy changes.     

Abandon the dead donor rule or change the definition of death?

Research by Siminoff and colleagues reveals that many lay people in Ohio classify legally living persons in irreversible coma or persistent vegetative state (PVS) as dead that additional respondents, although classifying such patients as living, would be willing to procure organs from them. This paper analyzes possible implications of these findings for public policy. A majority would procure organs from those in irreversible coma or in PVS. Two strategies for legitimizing such procurement are suggested. One strategy would be to make exceptions to the dead donor rule permitting procurement from those in PVS or at least those who are in irreversible coma while continuing to classify them as living. Another strategy would be to further amend the definition of death to classify one or both groups as deceased, thus permitting procurement without violation of the dead donor rule. Permitting exceptions to the dead donor rule would require substantial changes in law--such as authorizing procuring surgeons to end the lives of patients by means of organ procurement--and would weaken societal prohibitions on killing. The paper suggests that it would be easier and less controversial to further amend the definition of death to classify those in irreversible coma and PVS as dead. Incorporation of a conscience clause to permit those whose religious or philosophical convictions support whole-brain or cardiac-based death pronouncement would avoid violating their beliefs while causing no more than minimal social problems. The paper questions whether those who would support an exception to the dead donor rule in these cases and those who would support a further amendment to the definition of death could reach agreement to adopt a public policy permitting organ procurement of those in irreversible coma or PVS when proper consent is obtained.     

An "opting in" paradigm for kidney transplantation

Almost 60,000 people in the United States with end stage renal disease are waiting for a kidney transplant. Because of the scarcity of organs from deceased donors live kidney donors have become a critical source of organs; in 2001, for the first time in recent decades, the number of live kidney donors exceeded the number of deceased donors. The paradigm used to justify putting live kidney donors at risk includes the low risk to the donor, the favorable risk-benefit ratio, the psychological benefits to the donor, altruism, and autonomy coupled with informed consent; because each of these arguments is flawed we need to lessen our dependence on live kidney donors and increase the number of organs retrieved from deceased donors. An "opting in" paradigm would reward people who agree to donate their kidneys after they die with allocation preference should they need a kidney while they are alive. An "opting in" program should increase the number of kidneys available for transplantation and eliminate the morally troubling problem of"organ takers"who would accept a kidney if they needed one but have made no provision to be an organ donor themselves. People who "opt in" would preferentially get an organ should they need one at the minimal cost of donating their kidneys when they have no use for them; it is a form of organ insurance a rational person should find extremely attractive. An "opting in" paradigm would simulate the reciprocal altruism observed in nature that sociobiologists believe enhances group survival. Although the allocation of organs based on factors other than need might be morally troubling, an "opting in" paradigm compares favorably with other methods of obtaining more organs and accepting the status quo of extreme organ scarcity. Although an "opting in" policy would be based on enlightened self-interest, by demonstrating the utilitarian value of mutual assistance, it would promote the attitude that self-interest sometimes requires the perception that we are all part of a common humanity.     

SELLING SPARE PARTS AND RENTING USEFUL SPACES

In the late summer and fall of 1983 articles appeared in such publications as the New York Times, Fortune Magazine , and Science News telling of attempts to set up an agency for the selling of kidneys from living donors. The shortage of organs, especially of kidneys where the transplantation success has increased quite markedly over the past decade, has become something of a crisis. A situation of increased need and inadequate supply is also becoming a problem for such substances as human bone marrow, for use in the treatment of immune and blood diseases, and large quantities of human plasma for use by hemophiliacs. Obtaining a kidney for a patient in renal failure was difficult in the past because adequate matching is likely only between very close relatives. Now with new immunosuppressant drugs such as cyclosporine, close matches have become less important. Cadaver organs or marrow from unrelated living donors can be used with far greater success. The supply problem is still immense and the literature is filled with suggestions for appropriate and efficient means of organ acquisition. One of the latest suggestions involves a system of salvaging based on implied consent of deceased donors. The organs would be taken without asking directly for permission from family. The relatives would have the right to object to the organ removal, but unless they did so, the organ would be taken when needed.     

Death anxiety,altruism, self‐efficacy,and organ donation intention among Japanese college students: A moderated mediation analysis

The shortage of organs for transplantation in Japan has alerted health professionals to the low organ donation rate among Japanese people. The unique cultural view of death and altruism has been suggested leading to their low intent to donate cadaveric organs. A cross‐sectional survey was conducted in Japan to investigate the interplay of death anxiety, altruism, and self‐efficacy in influencing Japanese college students' intention to sign donor cards, in order to mobilise this large potential source of organ donors in the future. Six hundred and seven Japanese non‐donor card signers voluntarily completed a self‐administered questionnaire. The results of mediation and moderated mediation analyses with bootstrap approach suggest that death anxiety indirectly hinders Japanese people's intention to become a donor card signer through lowering of self‐efficacy, while altruism intensifies the positive impact of self‐efficacy on signing intention. These findings provide useful insights for organ procurement organisations seeking behavioural change not only in Japan but also in multi‐ethnic societies with a substantial Japanese population.     

《人体器官移植条例》颁布后面临的问题与对策

《人体器官移植条例》规范引导着我国器官移植健康发展,然而,随着《条例》对器官移植供、受者条件的严格限制,尸体供器官数量迅速下降,亲属活体移植逐步占据主导地位,由此引发一系列问题。结合《条例》,就器官来源短缺、保障活体供者安全、亲属活体供者选择和器官移植伦理委员会作用等问题做出较详细的分析,提出解决方法和对策。