Skip to main content

A Catholic Perspective on Organ Donation After Cardiac Death

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Contemporary Controversies in Catholic Bioethics

Part of the book series: Philosophy and Medicine ((CSBE,volume 127))

  • 977 Accesses

Abstract

One alternative to increase the supply of human organs for transplantation being re-examined, especially for kidney transplants, is the use of the donation after cardiac death [DCD] criteria. DCD is defined as the surgical recovery of organs after the pronouncement of death based on cessation of cardiopulmonary function. Patients who meet the DCD criteria are either severely ill on life support, and life support can be withdrawn with proper consent, or they have suffered unexpected cardiac arrest, whether previously ill or not, and cannot be resuscitated. The major concerns among medical professionals are threefold: first, circumventing the brain death criteria; second, the administration of anticoagulants and vasodilators that have the possibility of hastening death; and third, concern about the time requirement for the declaration of death which ranges from 2 to 10 min of asystole or electromechanical disassociation. In contrast to these concerns, patients and surrogates making end-of-life decisions of withdrawal of life-support systems due to devastating traumas or critical illnesses are requesting such donations to comply with authorized advance directives. The shortage of organs available, especially kidneys, and the rising interest of the American public in organ transplantation, has led to the reexamination of DCD as a potential source of organ donation. Many organ procurement organizations have approached the Institutional Ethics Committees (IEC) of acute care facilities with an assortment of DCD protocols requesting implementation. However, before acute care facilities can agree to implement a DCD protocol, the serious medical and ethical questions raised from both the public and medical sectors of society must be addressed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “Brain death” in this context, refers to a patient who has satisfied neurological criteria for being dead, not a patient who is merely irreversibly comatose.

  2. 2.

    In most European countries, the next of kin’s consent is not required, because this system presumes that potential donors would consent to organ donation unless they had specifically objected before their deaths.

  3. 3.

    It should be noted that life-support may be withdrawn in different areas of the hospital depending on what has been agreed upon by the family. The operating room is the most desirable place. However, other areas include a room near the operating room such as the postanesthesia care unit, or the patient may remain in the intensive care unit until he or she dies and then be transported to the operating room. While the latter two options allow for the benefit of families to be present at the time of death, there is a resulting increase of warm ischemic time, which may compromise the viability of the organs for successful transplantation.

  4. 4.

    It should be noted that neurological criteria have also been affirmed in individual addresses by both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI .

  5. 5.

    Premoral evil refers to the lack of perfection in anything whatsoever. As pertaining to human actions, it is that aspect that we experience as regrettable, harmful, or detrimental to the full actualization of the well-being of persons and of their social relationships.

  6. 6.

    Payment Subcommittee United Network For Organ Sharing Ethics Committee (1993). In addition, Governor Thomas Ridge of Pennsylvania considered paying a stipend of $300.00 to families of organ donors to help cover funeral expenses.

References

  • Alvarez, J., J. Iglesias, O. Pulido, L. Maldonado, G. San Juan, and P. Sanchez. 1997. Type 1 non-heart beating donors: Policy and results. Transplantation Proceedings 29: 3551–3558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellingham, J., C. Santhanakrishnan, N. Neidlinger, P. Wai, J. Kim, S. Niederhaus, G. Leverson, L. Fernandez, D. Foley, J. Mezrich, J. Odorico, R. Love, N. Oliveira, H. Sollinger, and A. D’Alessandro. 2011. Donation after cardiac death: A 29-year experience. Surgery 150: 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, F.R., M. Amin, R.N. Garrison, J. Harty, and G. Steinbock. 1990. The value of systemic heparinization during living donor nephrectomy. Transplantation Proceedings 22: 346–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernat, A.M., T. D’Alessandro, F. Port, T. Bleck, S. Heard, and J. Medina. 2006. Report of a national conference on donation after cardiac death. American Journal of Transplantation 6: 281–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catechism of the Catholic Church. 1997. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM. Accessed 2 Feb 2017.

  • Childress, James F. 1993. Non-heart beating donors of organs: Are the distinctions between direct killing and indirect effects and between killing and letting die relevant and helpful? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 3: 203–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Alessandro, M. Anthony, R. Hoffman, and F. Belzer. 1995. Non-heart beating donors: One response to the organ shortage. Transplantation Reviews 9: 168–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DuBois, James. 1999. Ethical issues in non-heart-beating organ donation. In Daughters of Charity National Health System Conference. St. Louis: Saint Louis University Center for Health Care Ethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, John, R. Hasz, and V. Robertson. 1999. Non-heart beating organ donation: Process and review. AACN Critical Issues in Critical Care Nursing 10: 293–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gift of Life. 2014. U.S. OPO experience-organ donors/dcd’s 1995–2013. http://www.donors1.org. Accessed 26 June 2016.

  • Institute of Medicine [IOM]. 1997. Non-heart beating organ transplantation: Medical and ethical issues in procurement. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000. Non-heart-beating organ transplantation: Practice and protocols. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. Organ donation: Opportunities for action. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, Gerald. 1958. Medico-moral problems. St. Louis: The Catholic Health Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koogler, T., and A. Costarino. 1998. The potential benefits of the pediatric non-heart beating organ donor. Pediatrics 101: 1045–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kootstra, G. 1996. Ethical questions in non-heart beating donorship. Transplantation Proceedings 28: 3417–3418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kootstra, G., R. Wijnen, J. Van Hooff, and C. Van Der Linden. 1991. Twenty percent more kidneys through a non-heart beating program. Transplantation Proceedings 23: 910–912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kootstra, G., J. Daemen, and A. Oomen. 1995. Categories of non-heart beating donors. Transplantation Proceedings 27: 3893–3894.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koughan, F., and W. Bogdanich. 1999. Response to ‘From Pittsburgh to Cleveland: NHBD controversies and bioethics’ by George J. Agich. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 8: 514–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangan, Joseph. 1994. An historical analysis of the principle of double effect. Theological Studies 10: 41–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, Richard, and Paul Ramsey, eds. 1978. Doing evil to achieve good. Chicago: Loyola University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, H.M., B. Jarrell, B. Broznik, E. Bruce, B. Hamilton, S. Stuart, T. Ackroyd, M. Nell, and R. Kochik. 1991. Estimation and characterization of the potential renal organ donor pool in Pennsylvania. Transplantation 51: 142–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organ Procurement Transplantation Network [OPTN]. 2015. Organ donation in the United States. Washington, DC: National Data 2015. https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/. Accessed 26 June 2016.

  • Payment Subcommittee United Network For Organ Sharing Ethics Committee. 1993. Financial incentives for organ donation. Richmond: UNOS.

    Google Scholar 

  • President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1981. Defining death. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reents, S. 1999. Heparin: Description, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics. In Clinical pharmacology. Tampa: Gold Standard Multimedia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinbrook, R. 2007. Organ donation after cardiac death. New England Journal of Medicine 357: 209–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiller, Calvin. 1995. Medical overview. In The encyclopedia of bioethics, ed. Warren Reich, vol. 2, rev ed. New York: Simon & Schuster/MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tingley, Susan, and Jodie Stabinski. 1999. Non-heart-beating organ donation. Advance for Nurses 4: 1–4. http://nursing.advanceweb.com/Article/non-heart-beating-organ-donation.aspx. Accessed 26 June 2016.

  • United Network of Organ Sharing [UNOS]. 1997. Update. Richmond: UNOS.

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Pittsburgh Medical Center [UPMC]. 1992. Policy and procedure manual. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 3: A-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, James J. 1984. Proportionate reason and its three levels of inquiry: Structuring the ongoing debate. Louvain Studies 10: 28–38.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter A. Clark S.J. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Clark, P.A. (2017). A Catholic Perspective on Organ Donation After Cardiac Death. In: Eberl, J. (eds) Contemporary Controversies in Catholic Bioethics. Philosophy and Medicine(), vol 127. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55766-3_33

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics