Graduate studies at Western
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):217-234 (2004)
|Abstract||: 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 that 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|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Elysa R. Koppelman (2003). The Dead Donor Rule and the Concept of Death: Severing the Ties That Bind Them. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (1):1 – 9.
A. S. Iltis & M. J. Cherry (2010). Death Revisited: Rethinking Death and the Dead Donor Rule. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (3):223-241.
D. Rodríguez-Arias, J. C. Tortosa, C. J. Burant, P. Aubert, M. P. Aulisio & S. J. Youngner (2013). One or Two Types of Death? Attitudes of Health Professionals Towards Brain Death and Donation After Circulatory Death in Three Countries. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 16 (3):457-467.
F. G. Miller, R. D. Truog & D. W. Brock (2010). The Dead Donor Rule: Can It Withstand Critical Scrutiny? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (3):299-312.
David Rodríguez-Arias, Maxwell J. Smith & Neil M. Lazar (2011). Donation After Circulatory Death: Burying the Dead Donor Rule. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (8):36-43.
Tracy C. Schmidt (2004). The Ohio Study in Light of National Data and Clinical Experience. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):235-240.
Megan Crowley-Matoka & Robert M. Arnold (2004). The Dead Donor Rule: How Much Does the Public Care ... And How Much Should. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):319-332.
Norman Fost (2004). Reconsidering the Dead Donor Rule: Is It Important That Organ Donors Be Dead? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):249-260.
Mike Collins (2010). Reevaluating the Dead Donor Rule. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (2):1-26.
Robert M. Veatch (2004). Abandon the Dead Donor Rule or Change the Definition of Death? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):261-276.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads35 ( #39,349 of 740,077 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,960 of 740,077 )
How can I increase my downloads?