Abstract
Purpose
To review the history of mandatory reporting for the purpose of identifying potential organ and tissue donors, and the controversy around the terms, “imminent” or “impending” death, and to suggest a solution to this controversy.
Source
In this narrative review, published papers were retrieved based on a Medline search using the terms, “mandatory reporting” and “organ donation.” In addition, unpublished data from the United Network for Organ Sharing and the Pennsylvania Gift of Life Program were reviewed.
Principal findings
There has been no demonstrable effect of mandatory reporting of “imminent” death independent of educational activities on numbers of organ donors or organs transplanted. Furthermore, mandatory reporting of “imminent” death does not meet criteria of an acceptable screening test.
Conclusion
Education of health care providers about eligibility for organ and tissue donation and about whom to report as a potential donor will hopefully lead to identification of more individuals who meet criteria for organ donation and who will go on to donate organs to the many potential recipients.
Résumé
Objectif
Revoir l’historique d’une déclaration obligatoire visant à identifier des donneurs d’organes et de tissus potentiels et la controverse autour des termes de mort “imminente” ou “annoncée” et suggérer une solution.
Source
Dans cette revue descriptive, des articles publiés ont été extraits de la base de Medline à partir des termes “mandatory reporting” et “organ donation”. Nous avons aussi passé en revue les données non publiées du United Network for Organ Sharing et du Pennsylvania Gift of Life Program.
Constatations principales
Il n’y a pas d’effet démontrable de la notification obligatoire de mort “imminente”, indépendante des activités pédagogiques, sur le nombre de donneurs d’organes ou d’organes transplantés. De plus, l’obligation de déclarer la mort “imminente” ne répond pas au critère d’un test de dépistage ou d’un procédé de sélection acceptable.
Conclusion
La formation des prestateurs de soins sur l’admissibilité d’un don d’organe et de tissus et sur les gens reconnus comme donneurs potentiels devrait, espérons-le, conduire à l’identification de plus d’individus, répondant aux critères de don d’organe, qui acceptent de faire un don aux nombreux receveurs potentiels.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ross SE, Nathan H, O’Malley KF. Impact of a required request law on vital organ procurement. J Trauma 1990; 30: 820–4.
Norris MK. Required request: why it has not significantly improved the donor shortage (Editorial). Heart Lung 1990; 19: 685–6.
Gaber AO, Hall G, Britt LG. An assessment of the impact of required request legislation on the availability of cadaveric organs for transplantation. Transplant Proc 1990; 22: 318–9.
Siminoff LA, Arnold RM, Caplan AL, Virnig BA, Seltzer DL. Public policy governing organ and tissue procurement in the United States. Results from the national organ and tissue procurement study. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123: 10–7.
Caplan AL, Virnig B. Is altruism enough? Required request and the donation of cadaver organs and tissues in the United States. Crit Care Clin 1990; 6: 1007–18.
Martyn S, Wright R, Clark L. Required request for organ donation: moral, clinical, and legal problems. Hastings Cent Rep 1988; 18: 27–34.
Spital A. Mandated choice. The preferred solution to the organ shortage? Arch Intern Med 1992; 152: 2421–4.
Spital A. Mandated choice. A plan to increase public commitment to organ donation. JAMA 1995; 273: 504–6.
Council on Ethical and Judicial affairs, American medical association. Strategies for cadaveric organ procurement. Mandated choice and presumed consent. JAMA 1994; 272: 809–12.
Arnold RM, Siminoff LA, Frader JE. Ethical issues in organ procurement. A review for intensivists. Crit Care Med 1996; 12: 29–48.
Herz SE. Two Steps to three choices: a new approach to mandated choice. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 1999; 8: 340–7.
Pollard S. The impact of state legislation on organ donation-results of a US pilot scheme. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1997; 12: 2510–1.
Identification of potential organ, tissue, and eye donors. Questions and answers. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/cop/2a2.asp
UNOS 2001 Annual Report of the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients: transplant Data 1991–2000. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Office of Special Programs, Division of Transplantation, Rockville, MD; United Network for Organ Sharing, Richmond, VA; University Renal Research and Education Association, Ann Arbor, MI.
Marks WH. Participating in organ and tissue donation. Surgical Services Management 1999; 5: 48–50.
Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease. World Health Organ; 1968.
Woolf HB. The Miriam-Webster Dictionary. New York: Pocket Books; 1974.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Funding: none. Conflicts of interest: none known.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dodek, P. Mandatory reporting of “imminent” death to identify organ donors: History, controversy, and potential solutions. Can J Anesth 50, 955–960 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03018747
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03018747