Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 17, Issue 10, pp 774–778 | Cite as

Ethics of practicing medical procedures on newly dead and nearly dead patients

  • Jeffrey T. BergerEmail author
  • Fred Rosner
  • Eric J. Cassell
Original Articles


OBJECTIVE: To examine the ethical issues raised by physicians performing, for skill development, medically nonindicated invasive medical procedures on newly dead and dying patients.

DESIGN: Literature review; issue analysis employing current normative ethical obligations, and evaluation against moral rules and utilitarian assessments manifest in other common perimortem practices.

RESULTS: Practicing medical procedures for training purposes is not uncommon among physicians in training. However, empiric information is limited or absent evaluating the effects of this practice on physician competence and ethics, assessing public attitudes toward practicing medical procedures and requirements for consent, and discerning the effects of a consent requirement on physicians’ clinical competence. Despite these informational gaps, there is an obligation to secure consent for training activities on newly and nearly dead patients based on contemporary norms for informed consent and family respect. Paradigms of consent-dependent societal benefits elsewhere in health care support our determination that the benefits from physicians practicing procedures does not justify setting aside the informed consent requirement.

CONCLUSION: Current ethical norms do not support the practice of using newly and nearly dead patients for training in invasive medical procedures absent prior consent by the patient or contemporaneous surrogate consent. Performing an appropriately consented training procedure is ethically acceptable when done under competent supervision and with appropriate professional decorum. The ethics of training on the newly and nearly dead remains an insufficiently examined area of medical training.

Key words

medical education invasive procedures medical ethics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kaldjian LC, Wu BJ, Jekel JF, Kaldjian EP, Duffy TP. Insertion of femoral-vein catheters for practice by medical house officers during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:2088–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burns JP, Reardon FE, Truog RD. Using newly dead patients to teach resuscitation procedures. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1652–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iserson KV. Life versus death: exposing a misapplication of ethical reasoning. J Clin Ethics. 1994;5:261–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Orlowski JP, Kanoti GA, Mehlman MJ. The ethics of using newly dead patients for teaching and practicing intubation techniques. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:439–441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Iserson KV. Requiring consent to practice and teach using the recently dead. J Emerg Med. 1991;9:509–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brattlebo G, Seim SH. Teaching and training of invasive procedures on cadavers. Lancet. 1988;2:1078–9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    American Medical Association. Council on Ethical and Judical Affairs. Report 5-A-01. Available at: Accessed August 16, 2002.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Vos R, Oosterom L, Koster RW, de Haan RJ. Decisions to terminate resuscitation. Resuscitation. 1998;39:7–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burns JP, Truog RD. Insertion of femoral-vein catheters for practice by medical house officers during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. [letter]. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1369.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lantos JD, Singer PA, Walker RM, et al. The illusion of futility in clinical practice. Am J Med. 1989;87:81–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brody BA, Halevy A. Is futility a futile concept? J Med Philos. 1995;20:123–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tsai E. Should family members be present during cardiopulmonary resuscitation? N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1019–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gibart MK, Hutchinson CR, Cusimano MD, Regehr G. A computer-based trauma simulator for teaching trauma management skills. Am J Surg. 2000;179:223–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wik L, Thowsen J, Steen PA. An automated voice advisory manikin system for training in basic life support without an instructor. A novel approach to CPR training. Resuscitation. 2001;50:167–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaufmann C, Liu A. Trauma training: virtual reality applications. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2001;81:236–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Colt HG, Crawford SW, Galbraith O III. Virtual reality bronchoscopy simulation: a revolution in procedural training. Chest. 2001;120:1333–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Bioemedical and Behavioral Research. Implementing Human Research Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1983:39–40.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Code of Medical Ethics. Chicago, Ill: American Medical Association; 1997:30–1.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Annas G. The Rights of Patients. Carbondale, Ill: Southern Illinois University Press; 1989;234–36.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kantor JE, Hoskins IA. Brain death in pregnant women. J Clin Ethics. 1993;4:308–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Murphy TF. Sperm harvesting and postmortem fatherhood. Bioethics. 1995;9:380–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    American Medical Association. Autopsy: life’s final chapter. Available at: Accessed May 14, 2002.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meyers DW. The Human Body and the Law. 2nd Ed. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press; 1991.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McNamara RM, Monti S, Kelly JJ. Requesting consent for an invasive procedure in newly deceased adults. JAMA. 1995;274:128–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Benfield DG, Flaksman RJ, Tsun-Hsin L, Kantak AD, Kokomoor FW, Vollman JH. Teaching intubation skills using newly deceased infants. JAMA. 1991;265:2360–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Manifold CA, Storrow A, Rodgers K. Patient and family attitudes regarding the practice of procedures on the newly deceased. Acad Emerg Med. 1999;6:110–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tahcakra S, Ho S, Lynch M, Newson R. Should doctors practise resuscitation skills on newly deceased patients? A survey of public opinion. J R Soc Med. 1998;91:576–8.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Olsen J, Spilger S, Windisch T. Feasibility of obtaining family consent for teaching cricothyrotomy on the newly dead in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1995;25:660–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goldblatt AD. Don’t ask, don’t tell: practicing minimally invasive resuscitation techniques on the newly dead. Ann Emerg Med. 1995;25:86–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wendler D, Dickert N. The consent process for cadaveric organ procurement. JAMA. 2001;285:329–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Clayton SA, Sivak SL. Improving the autopsy rate at a university hospital. Am J Med. 1992;94:423–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ikels C. Kidney failure and transplantation in China. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:1271–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Perkins HS, Supik JD, Hazuda HP. Autopsy decisions: the possibility of conflicting cultural attitudes. J Clin Ethics. 1993;4:145–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Perez LM, Shulman B, Davis F, et al. Organ donation in three major American cities with large Latino and black populations. Transplantation. 1988;46:553–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sznajder JI, Zveibil FR, Bitterman H, Weiner P, Bursztein S. Central vein catheterization. Failure and complication rates by three percutaneous approaches. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146:259–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bo-Linn GW, Anderson DJ, Anderson KC, McGoon MD. Percutaneous central venous catheterization performed by medical house officers: a prospective study. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1982;8:23–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey T. Berger
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Fred Rosner
    • 3
    • 4
  • Eric J. Cassell
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Received from Winthrop-University HospitalMineola
  2. 2.Stony Brook School of MedicineStony Brook
  3. 3.Mount Sinai ServicesQueens Hospital CenterJamaica
  4. 4.Mount Sinai School of MedicineNew York
  5. 5.Weill Medical College of Cornell UniversityNew York
  6. 6.New York-Presbyterian HospitalNew York

Personalised recommendations