Advertisement

Legal Aspects of Organ Transfer

  • H. Richard Beresford

Abstract

Once it is assumed that society generally favors organ transplantation as a treatment for impaired, sick, or dying persons, it is appropriate to ask whether applicable laws help or hinder the process. The following discussion considers several questions: What are the existing legal constraints on organ transfers? What changes in law can or should be made to augment organ transfers? What role should law play in achieving just allocation of organs? No attempt will be made to catalogue laws of various states or to replay debates about “brain death.” Suffice it to say here, all participants in organ transplantation should be knowledgeable about local legal standards concerning consent to organ transfer and “brain death.” For more detailed information, the reviews of Schwartz (1984) and Stuart et al (1981) are recommended.

Keywords

Organ Donation Brain Death Legal Aspect Transplant Program Presume Consent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Areen, J., King, P. A., Goldberg, S., and Capron, A. M., 1987a, Law Sci. Med.: 157–159.Google Scholar
  2. Areen, J., King, P. A., Goldberg, S., and Capron, A. M., 1987b, Law Sci Med.: 163–166.Google Scholar
  3. Beresford, H. R., 1984, Severe neurological impairment: Legal aspects of decisions to reduce care, Ann. Neurol. 5: 409–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caplan, A. L., 1983, Organ transplants: The costs of success, Hastings Ctr. Rep. 13: 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Capron, A. M., 1987, Anencephalic donors: Separate the dead from the dying, Hastings Ctr. Rep. 17: 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colo. Rev. Stat.,1981, sec. 42–2–106(5).Google Scholar
  7. Feinberg, J., 1985, The mistreatment of dead bodies, Hastings Ctr. Rep. 15: 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldstein, J., 1977, Medical care for the child at risk: On state suprvention of parental autonomy, Yale Law J. 86: 645–675.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hart v. Brown,29 Conn. Sup. 368, 289 A. 2d 386 (1972).Google Scholar
  10. Lausier v. Pescinski,67 Wis. 2d 4, 226 N.W. 2d 180 (1975).Google Scholar
  11. May, W. F., 1985, Religious justifications for donating body parts, Hastings Ctr. Rep. 15: 38–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. National Organ Transplant Act, 1984, Pub. Law 98–507, 98 Stat. 2339.Google Scholar
  13. Ore. Rev. Stat.,1985, 97.268.Google Scholar
  14. Overcast, T. D., Evans, R. W., Bowen, L. W., Hoe, M. M., and Livak, C. L., 1984, Problems in the identification of potential organ donors, DAMA 251: 1559–1562.Google Scholar
  15. Report of the Massachusetts Task Force on Organ Transplantation, 1985, Law Med. Health Care 13: 8–26.Google Scholar
  16. Schwartz, H. S., 1984, Bioethical and legal considerations in increasing the supply of transplantable organs: From UAGA to “Baby Fae,” Am. J. Law Med. 10: 397–437.Google Scholar
  17. Starzl, T., 1984, Implied consent for cadaveric organ donation, DAMA 251: 1592.Google Scholar
  18. Stuart, F. P., Veith, F. J., and Cranford, R. E., 1981, Brain death laws and pattems of consent to remove organs for transplantation from cadavers in the United States and 28 other countries, Transplantation 31: 238–244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, 1985, Unif. Law Ann. 8A: 15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Richard Beresford
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of NeurologyNorth Shore University HospitalManhassetUSA
  2. 2.Cornell University Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations