Donation after cardiocirculatory death: a call for a moratorium pending full public disclosure and fully informed consent

Authors
Abstract
Many believe that the ethical problems of donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) have been "worked out" and that it is unclear why DCD should be resisted. In this paper we will argue that DCD donors may not yet be dead, and therefore that organ donation during DCD may violate the dead donor rule. We first present a description of the process of DCD and the standard ethical rationale for the practice. We then present our concerns with DCD, including the following: irreversibility of absent circulation has not occurred and the many attempts to claim it has have all failed; conflicts of interest at all steps in the DCD process, including the decision to withdraw life support before DCD, are simply unavoidable; potentially harmful premortem interventions to preserve organ utility are not justifiable, even with the help of the principle of double effect; claims that DCD conforms with the intent of the law and current accepted medical standards are misleading and inaccurate; and consensus statements by respected medical groups do not change these arguments due to their low quality including being plagued by conflict of interest. Moreover, some arguments in favor of DCD, while likely true, are "straw-man arguments," such as the great benefit of organ donation. The truth is that honesty and trustworthiness require that we face these problems instead of avoiding them. We believe that DCD is not ethically allowable because it abandons the dead donor rule, has unavoidable conflicts of interests, and implements premortem interventions which can hasten death. These important points have not been, but need to be fully disclosed to the public and incorporated into fully informed consent. These are tall orders, and require open public debate. Until this debate occurs, we call for a moratorium on the practice of DCD
Keywords Dead donor rule  Death  Donation after cardiac death  Organ donation
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-6-17
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 35,023
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Are DCD Donors Dead?Don Marquis - 2010 - Hastings Center Report 40 (3):24-31.
The Dead Donor Rule: Can It Withstand Critical Scrutiny?F. G. Miller, R. D. Truog & D. W. Brock - 2010 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (3):299-312.
The Whole-Brain Concept of Death Remains Optimum Public Policy.James L. Bernat - 2006 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (1):35-43.

View all 24 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

How (Not) to Think of the ‘Dead-Donor’ Rule.Adam Omelianchuk - 2018 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 39 (1):1-25.

View all 17 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Organ Donation, Brain Death and the Family: Valid Informed Consent.Ana S. Iltis - 2015 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 43 (2):369-382.
Informed Consent as Waiver: The Doctrine Rethought?Emma C. Bullock - 2010 - Ethical Perspectives 17 (4):529-555.
Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics.Neil C. Manson - 2007 - Cambridge University Press.
To See for Myself: Informed Consent and the Culture of Openness.T. Walter - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (9):675-678.
Can Broad Consent Be Informed Consent?M. Sheehan - 2011 - Public Health Ethics 4 (3):226-235.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-12-30

Total downloads
55 ( #114,603 of 2,275,421 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #88,062 of 2,275,421 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature