This article focuses on examining the situation of organ trafficking in Africa from the aspect of pragmatist ethics. In the mainstream thought, the broader ethical dilemma of organ trafficking is viewed within the moral contestation of altruism as a rule for organ procurement and the resulting worldwide organ shortage. The incapability of altruistic transplant orthodoxy to serve as an applicable foundation for a public policy is considered as a reason for organ trafficking. In fact, to battle organ trafficking, (...) utilitarian-inclined studies suggest organ selling, compensated donations, and non-directed paid donations as practical alternatives. However, when investigating the context of organ trafficking in Africa, the issue goes beyond the mere moral dilemma of altruism and organ shortage. In the region, organ trafficking is rooted within more systemic, structural, socio-economic, and political problems, grounded in the abuse of transplantation, and connected to transplant tourism and migration, which needs a pragmatic multimodal solutions than the earlier mainstream pathways. In pragmatist ethics, the moral assessment and solutions to the underlying problems depend on the context wherein the moral problem arises. Pragmatist ethics does not stick to absolute moral theories; instead, it focuses on the relevant assessment of the felt moral problem in a given context and aims at seeking solutions afresh. Thus, in the subsequent sections, this article looks at the context of organ trafficking in Africa and reassesses it by incorporating it into the ethical debates of transplantation and organ procurements and trading. The final part of this article reflects on solutions with the reconsideration of the context of transplantation and organ trafficking in the region. (shrink)

Here I consider some of the ethical and philosophical issues at the intersection of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) and deceased organ donation (DOD). Three possible objections about inherent aspects of the practice of DOD after MAiD are considered, and rejected. The bulk of the chapter examines recent calls to keep decisions about DOD and MAiD separate, and to clarifying the nature of the ethical concerns underlying effort to protect patients from undue pressure and coercion. Several insights (...) are revealed as a result of this analysis, including that there is good reason to think that sometimes it may be morally justifiable to allow an eligible patient to pursue MAiD because they wish to donate their organs after death. Noting that more research is needed, I close with several recommendations for policy and practice. (shrink)

Background: Even in countries with an opt-out or presumed consent system, relatives have a considerable influence on the post-mortem organ harvesting decision. However, their reflection capacity may be compromised by grief, and they are, therefore, often prone to choose refusal as default option. Quite often, it results in late remorse and dissatisfaction. So, a high-quality reflection support seems critical to enable them to gain a stable position and a long-term peace of mind, and also avoid undue loss of potential grafts. (...) In practice, recent studies have shown that the ethical aspects of reflection are rarely and often poorly discussed with relatives and that no or incomplete guidance is offered. No review of the literature is available to date, although it could be of value to improve the quality of the daily practice. Objectives: The objective was to review and synthesize the main concepts and approaches, theories and practices of ethical reflection support of the relatives or surrogates of potential post-mortem organ donors. Research design: A narrative review was performed in the medical, psychological and ethical fields using PubMed, PsycArticles and Web of Science databases (1980–2020). Results: Out of 150 papers, 25 were finally retained. Four themes were drawn: the moral status of the potential post-mortem organ donor, the principlistic approach with its limits and critics, the narrative approach and the transcendental approach. Discussion: This review suggests an extension of psychological support towards ethical reflection support. The process of helping relatives in their ethical exploration of post-mortem organ donation is psychologically and morally characterized. The need for specialized professionals educated and experienced both in clinical psychology and in health ethics to carry out this task is discussed. Practical impact: This review could contribute to optimize the quality of the ethical reflection support by initiating an evolution from an empirical, partial and individual-dependent support to a more systematized, professionalized and exhaustive support. (shrink)

Background: The family interview context is permeated by numerous ethical issues which may generate conflicts and impact on organ donation process. Objective: This study aims to analyze the family interview process with a focus on principlist bioethics. Method: This exploratory, descriptive study uses a qualitative approach. The speeches were collected using the following prompt: “Talk about the family interview for the donation of organs and tissues for transplantation, from the preparation for the interview to the decision of (...) the family to donate or not.” For the treatment of qualitative data, we chose the method of content analysis and categorical thematic analysis. Participants: The study involved 18 nurses who worked in three municipal organ procurement organizations in São Paulo, Brazil, and who conducted family interviews for organ donation. Ethical considerations: The data were collected after approval of the study by the Research Ethics Committee of the School of Nursing of the University of São Paulo. Results: The results were classified into four categories and three subcategories. The categories are the principles adopted by principlist bioethics. Discussion: The principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice permeate the family interview and reveal their importance in the organs and tissues donation process for transplantation. Conclusion: The analysis of family interviews for the donation of organs and tissues for transplantation with a focus on principlist bioethics indicates that the process involves many ethical considerations. The elucidation of these aspects contributes to the discussion, training, and improvement of professionals, whether nurses or not, who work in organ procurement organizations and can improve the curriculum of existing training programs for transplant coordinators who pursue ethics in donation and transplantation as their foundation. (shrink)

Why do honest and decent employees sometimes overstep the mark? What makes managers with integrity go off the rails? What causes well-meaning organizations to deceive their clients, employees and shareholders? Social psychology offers surprising answers to these intriguing and timely questions. Drawing on scientific experiments and examples from business practice, Muel Kaptein discusses why good people sometimes do bad things and how they rise above this behavior. He explains why cheats wear sunglasses, why overstepping the mark could be a good (...) thing, how a surplus of rules creates offenders and why we should be suspicious of colleagues who wash their hands after meetings. (shrink)

In an effort to solve the shortage of transplantable organs, there have been several proposals to introduce an opt-out approach to deceased organ donation in England. In seeking to enact the so-called ‘opt-out proposal’ via an amendment to the Human Tissue Act 2004, The Organ Donation Bill 2017–19 represents the most recent attempt at such legal reform. Despite popular calls to the contrary, I argue in this paper that it would be premature for England, or, indeed, any country, (...) to adopt an opt-out approach at this time. Not only is the available evidence inconclusive on whether introduction of the opt-out proposal would increase the supply of transplantable organs, but there is also a chance that doing so might bring about an otherwise avoidable moral harm through an unjustified interference with individual autonomy. I maintain that the resources required to change the law to such effect would be better expended on alternative, provenly efficacious and less contentious mechanisms for increasing the supply of transplantable organs, such as: improving communication with the family of the deceased, developing infrastructure, raising public awareness and enhancing staff training, attitudes and understanding towards organ donation. (shrink)

Gratitude is both expected and problematic in live organ donation. Are there grounds to require it, and to forbid access to live donor transplantation to a recipient who fails to signal that he feels any form of gratitude? Recipient gratitude is not currently required for organ donation, but it is expected and may be a moral requirement. Despite this, we argue that making it a condition for live organ transplantation would be unjustified. It would constitute a problematic (...) and disproportionate punishment for perceived immoral behaviour on the part of the recipient. It would also bar the donor from positive aspects of organ donation that remain even in the absence of recipient gratitude. A potential recipient's lack of gratitude should be explored as a possible symptom of other morally problematic issues and integrated into the information provided to the potential donor. Recognition of the donor's gift and gratitude for it may also need to be expressed in part by others. This last aspect is relevant even in cases where the recipient feels and expresses gratitude. (shrink)

This article discusses the practice and development of organ donation by capital prisoners in China. It analyzes the issue of informed consent regarding organ donation from capital prisoners in light of Confucian ethics and expounds the point that under the influence of Confucianism, China is a country that attaches great importance to the role of the family in practicing informed consent in various areas, the area of organ donation from capital prisoners included. It argues that a proper (...) form of organ donation from capital prisoners can be justified within the Confucian moral context in which the proper interests of capital prisoners and their families, the benefit of organ receptors, and a rightful order of society should all be appropriately considered. From the Confucian perspective, the act of donating organs from a capital prisoner must be decided by both the prisoner and his/her family (i.e., each side should hold a veto power), whereas such donation, in the proper circumstance protected by a rightful procedure, should be appreciated as a morally praiseworthy act of the prisoner who is willing to make the final effort to repent and correct his/her evil conduct and to leave something good to the world. (shrink)

People have understandable concerns over what happens to their bodies, both during their life and after they die. Consent to organ donation is often perceived as an altruistic decision made by individuals prior to their death so that others can benefit from use of their organs once they have died. More recently, live organ donation has also been possible, where an individual chooses to donate an organ or body tissue that will not result in their death (such as (...) a kidney). Although these live organ donations can be purely altruistic, they are usually done to benefit a close family member. An additional complicating factor with both kinds of donation is whether forms of extended decision-making can be used as a means of consent. This is where instructions are issued through some form of advance directive giving specific written instructions as to donation or by appointing a proxy surrogate decision-maker to determine such issues. In the case of deceased donation, there is a question as to whether an advance directive can override the wishes of family members. In the case of live organ donation, there is a largely untested concern as to whether advance directives or surrogates can provide acceptable consent to donation when an individual, though still alive, has lost the capacity to consent for themselves. In this paper, I will focus predominantly on the second of these issues concerning live organ donation and the challenges this poses for donors who have lost capacity to consent. I argue that the limitations on advance directives and surrogate decision-making mean that they can only give us an indication of preference and cannot serve as an authoritative consent where there is any dispute over donation. Instead, in turns out that family members have a significant and usually determinate role to play in these decisions. Although I am focusing on organ donation, the implications for this potentially extend to the use of other tissues and even gametes, which could be used for reproductive purposes. (shrink)

Cadaveric donation comprises organ donation—that is, taking organs from brain dead people, as well as tissue donation, meaning taking tissues from brain dead as well as heart dead people. The organ transplant procedure from brain dead patients is beyond the scope of the pathologist, as it is done by surgeons in the operating theatre. In a broader sense, however, pathologists are involved in cadaveric tissue donation as well as taking tissues from cadavers for diagnostic procedures within (...) the framework of the autopsy , and to gather material for research and training students and pathology residents . For cadaveric tissue donation, different ethical and practical issues must be considered, which we will try to review in this paper from the perspective of the pathologist.CADAVERIC TISSUE SAMPLING FOR TRANSPLANTATION PURPOSESSeveral tissues can be taken from “true” cadavers that may still be used for transplantation such as skin, corneas, tendons, bone. This is usually done in collaboration with the pathologist, who is in most countries responsible for the body after the death of the patient in the hospital. All these tissues can be harvested several hours after death, as they undergo only slow degradation. In The Netherlands, as dictated by law, patients must actively have given permission for donation during life by registering with the Transplantation Register. Since this procedure was implemented, the number of organs available for donation has not increased but decreased somewhat, while the number of tissues has increased. A great obstacle to the increase in the number of donations is that only 37% of the population is registered …. (shrink)

A provocative question has emerged since the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on assisted dying: Should Canadians who request, and are granted, an assisted death be considered a legitimate source of transplantable organs? A related question is addressed in this paper: is controlled organ donation after assisted death (cDAD) more or less ethically-problematic than standard, controlled organ donation after circulatory determination of death (cDCDD)? Controversial, ethics-related dimensions of cDCD that are of relevance to this research question are explored, (...) and morally-relevant distinctions between cDAD and cDCD are identified. In addition, a set of morally-relevant advantages of one practice over the other is uncovered, and a few potential, theoretical issues specifically related to cDAD practice are articulated. Despite these concerns, the analysis suggests a counterintuitive conclusion: cDAD is, overall, less ethically-problematic than cDCDD. The former practice better respects the autonomy interests of the potential donor, and a claim regarding irreversibility of cessation of the donor’s circulatory function in the cDAD context can be supported. Further, with cDAD, there is no possibility that the donor will have negative sensory experiences during organ procurement surgery. Although the development of appropriate policy-decision and regulatory approaches in this domain will be complex and challenging, the comparative ethical analysis of these two organ donation practices has the potential to constructively inform the deliberations of relevant stakeholders, resource persons and decision makers. (shrink)

Given the need for organs, public organizations use social marketing strategies to increase the number of donors. Their campaigns employ a variety of moral appeals. However, their effects on audiences are unclear. We identified 14 campaigns in Germany from over the last 20 years. Our approach combined a multimodal analysis of categorized posters with a qualitative analysis of responses, collected in interviews or focus groups, of 53 persons who were either skeptical or undecided about organ donation. The combined (...) analyses revealed that the posters failed to motivate laypersons in general to donate, and were even less effective on skeptical or undecided individuals. We explain this in terms of the types of moral messages found on posters and the limits of such social marketing strategies. Furthermore, we discuss certain ethical aspects of organ donation campaigns pertaining to communicating norms and trust in public institutions. (shrink)

Twelve contributors discuss critical issues affecting medical ethics. Topics include: the normative principles of medical ethics, concepts of health and disease, the physician-patient relationship, human experimentation, informed consent, genetics, ethical issues in organ transplantation, and moral.

The issue of directed donation of organs from deceased donors for transplantation has recently risen to the fore, given greater significance by the relatively stagnant rate of deceased donor donation in the UK. Although its status and legitimacy is explicitly recognized across the USA, elsewhere a more cautious, if not entirely negative, stance has been taken. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Human Tissue Act 2004, and in Scotland the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006, are both silent (...) in this regard. Although so-called conditional donation, donation to (or perhaps withheld from) a specific class, has been outlawed as a product of guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Health issued in the wake of the controversial incident occurring in the North of England in 1998, its intended application to ‘directed’ donation is less certain. Directed and conditional donations challenge the traditional construct of altruistic donation and impartial (equitable) allocation in a very immediate and striking fashion. They implicitly raise important questions as to whether the body or parts of the body are capable of being owned, and by whom. This paper attempts to explore the notion of donor ownership of body parts and its implications for both directed and conditional donation. (shrink)

This paper examines questions concerning elective ventilation, contextualised within English law and policy. It presents the general debate with reference both to the Exeter Protocol on elective ventilation, and the considerable developments in legal principle since the time that that protocol was declared to be unlawful. I distinguish different aspects of what might be labelled elective ventilation policies under the following four headings: ‘basic elective ventilation’; ‘epistemically complex elective ventilation’; ‘practically complex elective ventilation’; and ‘epistemically and practically complex elective ventilation’. (...) I give a legal analysis of each. In concluding remarks on their potential practical viability, I emphasise the importance not just of ascertaining the legal and ethical acceptability of these and other forms of elective ventilation, but also of assessing their professional and political acceptability. This importance relates both to the successful implementation of the individual practices, and to guarding against possible harmful effects in the wider efforts to increase the rates of posthumous organ donation. (shrink)

Over the past 20 years, organ donations in Spain have soared from modest numbers to the highest rate in the world. In the brief span between 1998 and 2005, donation rates have increased from 14 per million population to 35.1 p.m.p. By way of comparison the number in the United States is 25.5 donations p.m.p.

: Recently, various suggestions have been made to respond to the increasingly great shortage of organs by paying for them. Because of the undesirable side effects of such approaches (commodification, injustice, and costs), a communitarian approach should be tried first. A communitarian approach to the problem of organ shortage entails changing the moral culture so that members of society will recognize that donating one's organs, once they are no longer of use to the donor, is the moral (right) (...) thing to do. This approach requires much greater and deeper efforts than sharing information and making public service announcements. It entails a moral dialogue, in which the public is engaged, leading to a change in what people expect from one another. Among the devices that could help to change the moral culture are a public statement, endorsed by community members and leaders, that expresses the community sense that donation "is what a good person does" and a community-specific web page that lists those who have made the commitment. A change in law so that a person's wishes in the matter are recognized as final and binding is also desired. This position paper deals only with cadaver organs and not living donors. (shrink)

Organ donations after cardiac death account for about 20 percent of all vital-organ transplantations in the United States. This article evaluates DCDs in light of the Catholic moral tradition. Certain premortem interventions commonly associated with DCDs are morally impermissible even though the injuries they inflict on the patient are ostensibly inconsequential. More importantly, the criteria used for expeditiously assaying circulatory death—criteria which enhance the effectiveness of DCDs—do not always guarantee that the donor is actually deceased. Unless DCD protocols attend (...) to these ethical problems, Catholic hospitals are obliged to abandon the practice. (shrink)

Conditional and directed deceased organ donations occur when donors attempt to influence the allocation of their donated organs. This can include asking that the organs are given to or withheld from certain types of people, or that they are given to specified individuals. Donations of these types have raised ethical concerns, and have been prohibited in many countries, including the UK. In this article we report the findings from a qualitative study involving interviews with potential donors, potential recipients and (...) transplant staff, and use these results as a springboard for further ethical commentary. We argue that although participants favoured unconditional donation, this preference was grounded in a false distinction between ‘medical’ and ‘non-medical’ allocation criteria. Although there are good reasons to maintain organ allocation based primarily upon the existing ‘medical’ criteria, it may be premature to reject all other potential criteria as being unacceptable. Part of participants' justification for allocating organs using ‘medical’ criteria was to make the best use of available organs and avoid wasting their potential benefit, but this can also justify accepting conditional donations in some circumstances. We draw a distinction between two types of waste – absolute and relative – and argue that accepting conditional donations may offer a balance between these forms of waste. (shrink)

Since we have learned that human organs can be used to treat severe health problems, only donation has been considered for organ procurement. Among the other possibilities that can be used after a person’s death, purchase or systematic removal have been a priori rejected. However, we will show that the appeal to individual altruism have resulted in some of the aporias of the present situation. Subsequently, we will consider how systematic organ removal from deceased persons can be made acceptable (...) in liberal and democratic societies. Finally, we will suggest that individual choices with regard to systematic organ removal could well be registered in a way that allows proper implementation of present French legislation. (shrink)

In their recent article, Glannon and Ross remind us that family members have obligations to help each other that strangers do not have. They argue, I believe correctly, that what creates moral obligations within families is not genetic relationship but rather a sharing of intimacy. For no one are these obligations stronger than they are for parents of young children. This observation leads the authors to the logical conclusion that organ donation by a parent to her child is (...) not optional but rather a prima facie duty. However, Glannon and Ross go a step further by suggesting that because parent-to-child organ donation is a duty, it cannot be altruistic. They assert that “altruistic acts are optional, nonobligatory…supererogatory…. Given that altruism consists in purely optional actions presupposing no duty to aid others, any parental act that counts as meeting a child's needs cannot be altruistic.” Here I think the authors go too far. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14.1 (2004) 47-54 [Access article in PDF] Ethical Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research*(A Recommended Manuscript) Adopted on 16 October 2001Revised on 20 August 2002 Ethics Committee of the Chinese National Human Genome Center at Shanghai, Shanghai 201203 Human embryonic stem cell (ES) research is a great project in the frontier of biomedical science for the twenty-first century. Be- cause the research (...) involves the use of human embryos, it triggers serious debate on ethical issues. Opponents consider the embryo to be an early form of human life that should be respected and not destroyed. However, the majority of scientists support embryonic stem cell research, believing that it offers good prospects for the treatment of diseases that have remained incurable until now and so will benefit humankind. The Ethics Committee of the Department of Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of the Chinese National Human Genome Center at Shanghai seriously discussed the ethical debate initiated by embryonic stem cell research. We concluded that we should support the scientists of our country in actively carrying out human embryonic stem cell research for the noble cause of "medicine being a beneficent art." For the healthy and orderly development of human embryonic stem cell research in our country, we put forward the following recommended Ethical Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research as a reference for leaders, administrative departments, and related scientists. Preface Article 1. Human embryonic stem cells are the primitive cells that play the main role in the growth and development of a human body. These [End Page 47] primitive cells have the potential for infinite proliferation, self-renewal, and multi-directional differentiation. If scientists can discover the mechanism of differentiation of human embryonic stem cells, it will be possible to induce differentiation of human embryonic stem cells to form various types of human cells for clinical cell therapy. If human embryonic stem cell research can be integrated with modern biomedical engineering techniques, it also will be possible to make repair and replacement of human tissues and organs a reality. Article 2. There are two ways to classify human embryonic stem cells. One way is to classify them according to their potential for differentiation. There could be three kinds of stem cells: totipotent stem cells, pluripotent stem cells, and unipotent stem cells.A totipotent stem cell has the potential to develop into a whole individual. It can differentiate into the more than 200 cell types in the whole body, construct any tissue or organ of the body, and finally develop into a whole individual. The fertilized egg and the cleavage cells at the very early stage of embryonic development are totipotent stem cells.A pluripotent stem cell has the potential to differentiate into many cell types derived from the three embryonic layers. However, it has lost the capacity to develop into a complete organism.A unipotent stem cell is derived from the further differentiation of the pluripotent stem cell. It can differentiate only into one cell type such as a hematopoietic stem cell, neural stem cell, and others.The other way is to classify human stem cells according to their source. There could be two kinds of human stem cells: embryonic stem cells and tissue stem cells (also called adult stem cells). The former involves experimentation with embryos, which has serious ethical implications. Ethical issues associated with the latter are mainly expressed in the various opinions regarding the allocation of health resources. Article 3. Human embryonic stem cells are the group of cells called the blastocyst inner cell mass during the early stage of embryonic development. They are the main source of totipotent stem cells, and hence the focal and hot point in stem cell research. Studies on the clinical application of embryonic stem cells probably will involve use of the somatic cell nucleus transfer (SCNT) technique, which destroys the early human embryo. At present, the ethical and moral debate is very serious in human embryonic stem cell research regarding whether the research will develop... (shrink)

With aims to both increase organ supply and better reflect individual donation preferences, many nations worldwide have shifted from ‘opt‐in’ to ‘opt‐out’ systems for post‐mortem organ donation (PMOD). In such countries, while a prospective donor's willingness to donate their organs/tissues for PMOD was previously ascertained—at least partially—by their having recorded positive donation preferences on an official register prior to death, this willingness is now presumed or inferred—at least partially—from their not having recorded an objection to PMOD—on an (...) official organ donation register. Using evidence regarding the presence and prevalence of selective donation preferences, and via exploration of how appeals to donation preferences are used to both motivate and legitimate shifts to opt‐out frameworks, this paper draws attention to a set of previously unexplored problems for opt‐out organ donation arising in contexts where: (a) individuals demonstrate selective post‐mortem organ/tissue donation preferences, (b) legislation provides prospective donors with the opportunity to selectively permit/refuse the donation of certain organs/tissues in line with these preferences. While selective preferences pose few problems for opt‐in systems where a selective occasion is built into the process of signing the donor register, this is not the case for opt‐out systems. The loss of this selective occasion can cause significant problems where appeals to preferences motivate/legitimate shifts to opt‐out but evidence regarding variable preferences does not feed into determinations regarding organ/tissue exclusions. The nature of these problems depends on how the authorization aspect of ‘opt‐out’ systems is framed (e.g. as presumed consent, deemed consent or, given the role of familial consent in many jurisdictions as consent in name only). (shrink)

Should we remove whole organs from living donors only in the case where they are genetically related to the intended recipients of such organs? The practice in a majority of European nations is to apply such a restriction. Yet this restriction obviously limits the availability of already scarce donor organs, and curtails the opportunities for altruistic action on the part of those who, in any given case, are not genetically related to the recipient. The author argues that we have a (...) duty to maximise procurement of organs, and that we should respect the 'genetic relative' restriction only in response to compelling moral reasons. The author considers the principal objections to non-related donation and shows them to be misdirected. He concludes that non-related donation should be welcomed where clinically appropriate and truly voluntary. (shrink)

Arguments against directed altruistic living organ donation are too weak to justify a ban. Potential donors who want to specify the non-related person or group of persons to receive their donated kidney should be accepted. The arguments against, based on considerations of motivation, fairness and (non-)anonymity (e.g. those recently cited by an advisory report of the Dutch Health Council), are presented and discussed, as well as the Dutch Governments response. Whereas the Government argues that individuals have authority with regard (...) to the allocation of their organs, partial considerations have not been sufficiently explored. In addition, it is argued that partial relationships govern human life, are significant and should be valued highly. These relationships are at the core of accepted living kidney donation between relatives (family members, partners, friends). Respecting the particular act of living donation goes beyond respect for autonomy; it touches upon our personal and social identity. Donation, e.g. of a kidney, is not undertaken strictly for the benefit of the recipient, but also to meet the moral standards we wish to set for ourselves. This consideration, rooted in a view of moral identity, provides the basis for many forms of directed donation that are both partial and justified. If the importance of this is not recognized, social policies can be neither adequate nor effective. (shrink)

Organ procurement organization (OPO) staff play an essential role in the facilitation of organ donation as they guide family members and loved ones of dying patients through the donation process. Throughout the donation process, OPO staff must assume the role of a dual advocate, considering both the interests of the donor (which often include the wishes of the donor’s family) and the interests of potential recipient(s). The benefits of this role are well established; however, minimal literature exists (...) on the ways this role can cause moral distress in OPO staff, who frequently face scenarios in which adhering to the wishes of a donor family may compromise donation potential but failing to honor donor family requests may result in further emotional burden for the family. Given the frequency with which these ethically complex situations exist during donation, OPO staff are at heightened risk for experiencing moral distress and burnout, yet they are seldom acknowledged in the existing moral distress literature. As a result, it is unclear whether the current practices available to mitigate moral distress are beneficial for this population. (shrink)

Globally there is a shortage of organs available for transplant resulting in thousands of lives lost as a result. Recently in the United Kingdom 457 people died as a result of organ shortage in just 1 year. 1 NHS Blood and Transplant suggest national debates to test public attitudes to radical actions to increase organ donation should be considered in addressing organ shortage. The selling of organs for transplant in the United Kingdom is prohibited under the Human Tissue Act (...) 2004. This discussion paper considers five ethical objections raised in the United Kingdom to paid donation and discusses how these objections are addressed within the only legal and regulated paid living unrelated renal donation programme in the world in Iran, where its kidney transplant list was eliminated within 2 years of its commencement. This article discusses whether paid living unrelated donation in Iran increases riskier donations and reduced altruistic donation as opponents of paid donation claim. The paper debates whether objections to paid donation based upon commodification arguments only oppose enabling financial ends, even if these ends enable beneficent acts. Discussions in relation to whether valid consent can be given by the donor will take place and will also debate the objection that donors will be coerced and exploited by a paid model. This article suggests that exploitation of the paid donor within the Iranian model exists within the legally permitted framework. However, paid living kidney donation should be discussed further and other models of paid donation considered in the United Kingdom as a radical means of increasing donation. (shrink)

Genetic engineerings confer to people a power on the transmission of life never possessed before. But people are divided on the question of how to use it for the well-being and spiritual progress of mankind. Catholic health personnel must meet two demands when discussing practical questions as the grafting of skin, tissues or organs, the donation, the use of staminals cells etc ...: their conception of human dignity which makes impossible for them to associate themselves with practices which consider (...) human living as simply a biological matter, and their obligation to be a factor of unity and reconciliation in a society at present profoundly divided on the meaning of life. Hence the necessity for them of evaluating the new techniques of care from the point of view of the social obligations and the distribution of ressources for the benefit of all from a moral point of view. It is therefore urgent for health personnel to participate in existing Ethical Committees or to support their creation. Catholic guilds of health personnel to-day have to prepare their members to take such responsability and to work for the recognition of this right. (shrink)

What are the moral challenges that confront doctors as they manage healthcare institutions? How do we build trust in medical organisations? How do we conceptualize moral action? Based on accounts given by senior doctors from organisations throughout the UK, this book discusses the issues medical leaders find most troubling and identifies the moral tensions they face. Moral Leadership in Medicine examines in detail how doctors protect patients' interests, implement morally controversial change, manage colleagues in difficulty and (...) rebuild trust after serious medical harm. The book discusses how leaders develop moral narratives to make sense of these situations, how they behave while balancing conflicting moral goals and how they influence those around them to do the right thing in difficult circumstances. Based on empirical ethical analysis, this volume is essential reading for clinicians in leadership roles and students and academics in the fields of healthcare management, medical law and healthcare ethics"--Provided by publisher. (shrink)

The current position on the deceased’s consent and the family’s consent to organ and tissue donation from the dead is a double veto—each has the power to withhold and override the other’s desire to donate. This paper raises, and to some extent answers, questions about the coherence of the double veto. It can be coherently defended in two ways: if it has the best effects and if the deceased has only negative rights of veto. Whether the double veto has (...) better effects than other policies requires empirical investigation, which is not undertaken here. As for rights, the paper shows that it is entirely possible that individuals have a negative right of veto but no positive right to compel acceptance of their offers. Thus if intensivists and transplant teams turn down the deceased’s offer, they do not thereby violate the deceased’s right. This leaves it open whether non-rights based reasons—such as avoiding bad publicity or distress —require intensivists and transplant teams to turn down or accept the deceased’s offer. This, however, is beyond the scope of this paper. The current position may or may not be wrong, but it is at least coherent. (shrink)

This paper defends an ‘opt-out’ scheme for organ procurement, by distinguishing this system from ‘presumed consent’ (which the author regards as an erroneous justification of it). It, first, stresses the moral importance of increasing the supply of organs and argues that making donation easier need not conflict with altruism. It then goes on to explore one way that donation can be increased, namely by adopting an opt-out system, in which cadaveric organs are used unless the deceased (or (...) their family) registered an objection. Such policies are often labelled ‘presumed consent’, but it is argued that critics are right to be sceptical of this idea—consent is shown to be an action, rather than a mental attitude, and thus not something that can be presumed. Either someone has consented or they have not, whatever their attitude to the use of their organs. Thankfully, an opt-out scheme need not rest on the presumption of consent. Actual consent can be given implicitly, by one's actions, so it is argued that the failure to register an objection (given certain background conditions) should itself be taken as sign of consent. Therefore, it is permissible to use the organs of someone who did not opt out, because they have—by their silence—actually consented. (shrink)

One response to the chronic shortage of organs for transplant in the United States has been the passage of laws establishing first-person authorization for donation of organs, providing legal grounds for the retrieval of organs and tissues from registered donors, even over the objections of their next of kin. The ethical justification for first-person authorization is that it is a matter of respecting the donor’s wishes. The objection of some next of kin may be that the donor would (...) not have wished for his or her loved ones to have their preferences overridden, had they considered that possibility. This article examines the basis of the conflict and suggests a remedy grounded in the provision of donor-intent options that have the ability to clarify the donor’s wishes. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Back to the Future:Obtaining Organs from Non-Heart-Beating CadaversRobert M. Arnold (bio) and Stuart J. Youngner (bio)Organ Transplantation requires viable donor organs. This simple fact has become the Achilles' heel of transplantation programs. Progress in immunology and transplant surgery has outstripped the supply of available organs. Between 1988 and 1991, for example, the number of transplant candidates on waiting lists increased by about 55 percent, while the number of donors (...) increased only about 16 percent.1 By the end of March 1993, more than 30,000 potential recipients awaited transplantation (United Network for Organ Sharing Database (UNOS) 1993). Every day six of these patients die prior to receiving a heart or liver transplant, while patients needing kidney transplants must tolerate a lower quality of life on dialysis (Grenvik 1992; Evans, Orians, and Ascher 1992).This scarcity is likely to get worse. As transplantation becomes more successful, it is being offered to sicker and older patients. Attempts to transplant other solid organs, such as small bowel and pancreas, will only fuel the demand for donors. However, the current source of organs is unlikely to grow. Most organs come from patients who have been declared dead by neurologic criteria (commonly referred to as "brain dead" or heart-beating cadaver donors (HBCDs) because their hearts are beating at the time of procurement). Estimates of the potential pool of HBCDs have been revised downward from 20,000-27,000 to roughly 10,000-12,000 (Nathan et al. 1991). Improvements in automobile safety and handgun legislation will likely lead to further reductions. Moreover, the rate of procurement from HBCDs has remained relatively flat despite extensive public awareness campaigns and legislation requiring hospitals to routinely request donation from families of dead patients (Caplan et al. 1992).If organ transplantation is going to continue to flourish, alternative [End Page 103] sources of organs must be found. Recently the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) proposed procuring organs from patients who have been declared dead by traditional cardiopulmonary rather than brain-oriented criteria after they or their families have decided to forgo life-sustaining treatment—hereafter referred to as the Pittsburgh protocol (UPMC Policy 1993). These patients are typically referred to as non-heart-beating cadaver donors (NHBCDs) because their hearts are no longer beating at the time of organ procurement.Although NHBCDs were a major source of transplantable kidneys prior to the institution of death by neurologic criteria, their usefulness was limited by "warm ischemia time." This term refers to the injury to tissues that occurs when the blood supply is interrupted and before the organs are cooled and reperfused. Under the Pittsburgh protocol, therapy is withdrawn in the operating room where a waiting surgical team removes organs immediately after death is declared. By controlling the place and time of death, it has been possible to minimize warm ischemia time and thus solve the technical problems previously associated with procurement from NHBCDs.The potential contribution of NHBCD organs is significant. Nathan (1992), using data from Delaware Valley Transplant Program, concludes that the use of severely brain injured, but not "brain dead" patients, would increase the donor pool by 20-25 percent. Moreover, unpublished data from the Pittsburgh organ procurement organization, the Center for Organ Recovery and Education (CORE), suggests that these organs, particularly kidneys, function as well as those procured from HBCDs (Broznick 1993).This volume is devoted to the ethical, psychosocial, and public policy implications of procuring organs from non-heart-beating cadaver donors after a discussion to forgo life-sustaining treatment. The genesis of this volume was a project in which we invited leading experts in transplantation, ethics, and public policy to use the Pittsburgh protocol as a starting point for exploring a broad range of issues associated with attempts to procure organs from NHBCDs. The issues raised by NHBCDs turned out to have important implications about the fundamental conceptual and moral assumptions underlying organ procurement.Although each of the papers in this volume can be read separately, we intend the volume to be read as a whole. Many of the latter pieces on the ethical implications of the policy are best understood in light of the earlier background papers... (shrink)

In this essay, I argue that the Commodification Objection, locates a phenomenon of real moral significance. In defending the Commodification Objection, I review three common criticisms of it, which claim firstly, that commodification doesn’t always lead to instrumentalization; secondly, that commodification isn’t the only route to such an outcome; and finally, that the Commodification Objection applies only to persons, and human organs are not persons. In response, I conclude that moral significance does not require that an undesirable outcome (...) be a necessary consequence of the phenomenon under examination; the relative likelihood of an undesirable mode of regard arising provides a morally-relevant distinguishing marker for assessing the comparative moral status of social institutions and arrangements; and sales in blood products are sufficiently distinct from sales of everyday artefacts and sufficiently close to personhood to provide genuine grounds for concern. Accordingly, criticisms of the Commodification Objection do not provide grounds for rejecting the claim that human organ sales in general and compensation for blood plasma donation in particular can have morally pernicious ‘commodificatory effects’ upon our attitudes, for what human organ sales provide is a distinctive ethical hazard. (shrink)

This study focuses on issues related to living organ donation for transplantation in Bangladesh. The policy and practice of living organ donation for transplantation in Bangladesh is family-oriented: close relatives (legal and genetic) are the only ones allowed to be living donors. Unrelated donors, altruistic donors (directed and non-directed), and paired/pooled or non-directed altruistic living donor chains—as many of these are implemented in other countries—are not legally allowed to serve as living donors in Bangladesh. This paper presents normative (...) arguments explaining why the family-oriented nature of regulations and practices surrounding living organ donation for transplantation is essential for Bangladesh. In this article, I specifically argue that if the Bangladesh government revises the current biomedical policy robustly beyond relatives and allows unrelated donors to donate organs legally, this may foster organ selling due to the poverty and corruption problems in Bangladesh. The family-oriented requirement of the living organ donation policy and practice is defensible and morally justifiable as it preserves common notions of the family unit and family bonding in Bangladesh. Maintaining the current living-donation regulations and promoting deceased donation is the way forward, as this safely preserves the family values, protects against organ selling, and increases access to organ transplantation. (shrink)

The recent review of the Unrelated Live Transplant Regulatory Authority provides administrative and statistical information regarding living donor kidney transplantation in the United Kingdom.1 However, it leaves much unsaid. For example, although the report does mention the number of live kidney donations from unrelated donors that ULTRA has approved, it fails to mention that the United Kingdom has a low live kidney donation rate compared with other European countries .2 More importantly, the report does not address the fundamental question (...) of whether the legal framework underlying ULTRA is morally justified. The legal regime in the United Kingdom proceeds on the tacit assumption that genetically unrelated donors are much more vulnerable to coercion than are related donors, and hence are more in need of protective regulation. In this article, we argue that the distinction drawn in the United Kingdom between genetically related and unrelated donors is difficult to justify, that it unnecessarily discourages live organ donation, and that the law should be changed.BACKGROUNDThe Unrelated Live Transplant Regulatory Authority is a creature of the Human Organ Transplant Act , which was enacted by parliament in 1989, and which came into force, with regulations, on 1 April 1990.3–5 The Human Organ Transplant Act was enacted hastily after the General Medical Council’s inquiry into the notorious case of a British physician’s involvement in transplants involving Turkish peasants.6 Young men were inveigled by an agent to travel to London, ostensibly to take up new jobs. In fact, they were being recruited as living donors of kidneys transplanted into fee paying foreign patients. The consequent debate in the media attracted an emotional …. (shrink)

If a person requires an organ or tissue donation to survive, many philosophers argue that whatever moral responsibility a biological relative may have to donate to the person in need will be grounded at least partially, if not entirely, in biological relations the potential donor bears to the recipient. We contend that such views ignore the role that a potential donor's unique ability to help the person in need plays in underwriting such judgments. If, for example, a sperm (...) donor is judged to have a significant moral responsibility to donate tissue to a child conceived with his sperm, we think this will not be due to the fact that the donor stands in a close biological relationship to the recipient. Rather, we think such judgments will largely be grounded in the presumed unique ability of the sperm donor to help the child due to the compatibility of his tissues and organs with those of the recipient. In this paper, we report the results of two studies designed to investigate the comparative roles that biological relatedness and unique ability play in generating judgments of moral responsibility in tissue donation cases. We found that biologically related individuals are deemed to have a significant moral responsibility to donate tissue only when they are one of a small number of people who have the capacity to help. (shrink)

We would like to respond to the comment we received from our colleagues on our case report about organ donation after euthanasia starting at home. We reply to their statements on medical and legal aspects, and provide more information on our view of informed consent.

The moral debate on living-donor organ transplantation historically focused on how to overcome the problem of the mutilation inherent in such a medical operation. In time, theologians began proposing justifications of LDOT that assumed that “mere removals” did not constitute mutilation. The example of mutilation as an “intrinsically evil act” in Veritatis splendor would seem to have closed the debate. Nevertheless, many theologians continue to address LDOT as a question of justifying a mutilation. The authors provide a brief summary (...) of the major contributors before and after Veritatis splendor to show that confusion still exists, and then propose new approaches to help resolve this important bioethical issue. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 13.3 : 427–436. (shrink)

Beyond compliance -- Moral dilemmas -- Duties and outcomes -- Moral luck -- Two ethical principles -- The navigation wheel -- From responsible to responsive -- Loophole ethics -- Conflict of interest -- Character and circumstances -- Moral neutralization -- The invisible gorilla.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics' recent report on the ethics of the donation of bodily material for treatment and research (Human Bodies: Donation for Medicine and Research. www.nuffieldbioethics.org/human-bodies) brings to the fore the much-debated question of how far society should go in trying to encourage people to donate their bodily material. Based on conclusions reached by the Working Party with respect to the duties of the stewardship state, the role of altruism and of solidarity, public interest in health-related (...) research, the welfare of the donor and the importance of ‘professional values’ such as trust and respect, the report presents an ‘Intervention Ladder’ that sets out the ethical acceptability of various ways of encouraging people to donate. Policy recommendations are made in a number of areas including organ donation, gamete donation, volunteering for clinical trials and the use of donated tissue in research. (shrink)

With the case of Belgium as a negative example, this paper will evaluate the legitimacy of using mentally incompetents as organ sources. The first section examines the underlying moral dilemma that results from the necessity of balancing the principle of respect for persons with the obligation to help people in desperate need. We argue for the rejection of a radical utilitarian approach but also question the appropriateness of a categorical prohibition. Section two aims to strike a fair balance between (...) the competing interests at stake and to define the conditions under which organ harvest from mentally incompetents might be morally acceptable. To this end, we morally assess the main requirements that have been put forward to allow organ removal from incompetent donors. We conclude that the current Belgian legislation is far too permissive and that national regulations that do not permit the harvest of non-regenerable organs from mentally incompetents in exceptional circumstances are too restrictive. On the basis of this discussion, we propose a number of guiding principles for decision-making in this area. (shrink)

Spurred by a severe shortage of cadaveric organs, there has been a marked growth in living organ donation over the past several years. This has stimulated renewed interest in the ethics of this practice. The major concern has always been the possibility that a physician may seriously harm one person while trying to improve the well-being of another. As Carl Elliott points out, this puts the donor's physician in a difficult predicament: when evaluating a person who volunteers to donate (...) an organ, “a doctor is in the position of deciding not simply whether a subject's choice is reasonable … but whether he [the doctor] is morally justified in helping the subject accomplish it.”1 This question has become even more difficult since the introduction of living donor operations that are more risky than living kidney donation and the suggestion that volunteers at added risk may sometimes be acceptable.2 So, how can we decide when the risk is too much? (shrink)

: Moral frameworks for evaluating non-donation strategies to increase the supply of cadaveric human organs for transplantation and ways to overcome barriers to organ donation are explored. Organ transplantation is a very complex area, because the human body evokes various beliefs, symbols, sentiments, and emotions as well as various rituals and social practices. From a rationalistic standpoint, some policies to increase the supply of transplantable organs may appear to be quite defensible but then turn out to be (...) ineffective and perhaps even counterproductive because of inadequate attention to these rich and complex features of human body parts. Excessively rationalistic policies neglect deep beliefs, symbols, sentiments, and emotions and the like, and that deficiency marks many actual and proposed policies. In addition, policies are often too individualistic and too legalistic. (shrink)

Organs available for transplantation are scarce and valuable medical resources and decisions about who is to receive them should not be made more difficult by complicated calculations of desert. Consideration of likely clinical outcome must always take priority when allocating such a precious resource otherwise there is a danger of wasting that resource. However, desert may be a relevant concern in decision-making where the clinical risk is identical between two or more potential recipients of organs. Unlikely as this scenario is, (...) such a decision procedure makes clear the interdependence of organ recipient and organ donor and hints at potential disadvantages for those who are willing to accept but unwilling to donate organs (free-riders). A combined opting-out and preference system weakens many of the objections to opting-out systems and may make the decision to donate organs on behalf of their deceased relatives easier for families. (shrink)

I would have preferred that the Special Section on Children as Organ Donors had focused on the donation of a specific organ because morally relevant differences are obscured when the subject is discussed in general terms. The donation of a lobe of liver and peripheral blood or bone marrow stem cells does not result in the permanent loss of vital tissue because these organs regenerate; however, a kidney does not regenerate and its donor loses a vital organ permanently. (...) Liver tissue and peripheral blood or bone marrow stem cells are typically required to save a life, but, because most patients with end-stage renal disease can be kept alive on dialysis, the donation of a kidney is rarely life saving. Also, donor risk is organ specific; for example, it is more dangerous to donate a lobe of liver than it is to donate peripheral blood or bone marrow stem cells. (shrink)