Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Altruism in terminal cancer patients and rapid tissue donation program: does the theory apply?

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rapid tissue donation (RTD) is an advancing oncology research procedure for collecting tumors, metastases, and unaffected tissue 2–6 h after death. Researchers can better determine rates of progression, response to treatment, and polymorphic differences among patients. Cancer patients may inquire about posthumous body donation for research to offer a personal contribution to research; however, there are barriers to recruiting for an RTD program. Physicians must reassure the patient that their treatment options and quality of care will not be compromised due to participating in RTD. In this commentary we discuss how theories of altruism may explain cancer patients’ desire to participate in an RTD program, the ethical concerns of health care professionals and patients and the use of altruism as a recruitment strategy. We offer recommendations for examining the cultural and ethical climate of the institution prior to initiating such a program such as examining the relationship of healthcare professionals and patients, identifying ethical concerns, and examining ways to promote acceptance and buy-in across professionals, patients, and families.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • American Medical Association. 2001. Declaration of professional responsibility: medicine’s social contract with humanity. Accessed 10 March 2012 at: http://www.ama-assn.org/go/declaration.

  • Andanda, P.A. 2008. Law, ethics and medicine: Human-tissue-related inventions: ownership and intellectual property rights in international collaborative research in developing countries. Journal of Medical Ethics 34(3): 171–179.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Law Reform Commission. 2003. Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia (ALRC96). Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amir, M., and E. Haskell. 1997. Organ donation: who is not willing to commit? Psychological factors influencing the individual’s decision to commit to organ donation after death. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 4(3): 215–229.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Back, A.L., J.P. Young, E. McCown, et al. 2008. Abandonment at the end of life from patient, caregiver, nurse, and physician perspectives: Loss of continuity and lack of closure. Archives of Internal Medicine 169(5): 474–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, M. 2006. ‘I’m not really read up on genetics’: Biobanks and the social context of informed consent. BioSocieties 1(2): 251–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C.D. 1991. The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C.D., and N.Y. Ahmad. 2009. Empathy-induced altruism: A threat to the collective good. In Altruism and prosocial behavior in groups (advances in GROUP processes, volume 26), ed. S.R. Thye, and E.J. Lawler, 1–23. United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boyette, A. C., Schabath, M. B., Quinn, G. P. 2012. Physicians knowledge and attitudes towards rapid autopsy. Unpublished thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.

  • Buell, J.F., J. Trofe, G. Sethuraman, et al. 2003. Donors with central nervous system malignancies: Are they truly safe? Transplantation 76(2): 340–343.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cahill, K.C., and R.R. Ettar. 2008. Student attitudes to whole body donation are influenced by dissection. Anatomical Sciences Education 1(5): 212–216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caporael, L.R. 2001. Evolutionary psychology: toward a unifying theory and a hybrid science. Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 607–628.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chochinov, H.M., T. Hack, S. McClement, L. Kristjanson, and M. Harlos. 2002. Dignity in the terminally ill: An empirical model. Social Science in Medicine 54(3): 433–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dugosh, K.L., D.S. Festinger, J.R. Croft, and D.B. Marlowe. 2010. Measuring coercion to participate in research within a doubly vulnerable population: Initial development of the coercion assessment scale. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 5(1): 93–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Erikson, E. 1959. Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues 1: 18–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Exley, M., N. White, and J.H. Martin. 2002. Why families say no to organ donation. Critical Care Nurse 22(6): 44–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ghorpade, A., L. Bruch, Y. Persidsky, et al. 2005. Development of a rapid autopsy program for studies of brain immunity. Journal of Neuroimmunology 163(1–2): 135–144.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg v Miami Children’s Hosp. Research Institute, Inc., 2003. 264 F Supp 2d 1064 (SD Fla 2003).

  • Gupta, A.K. 2004. WIPO-UNEP Study on the role of intellectual property rights in the sharing of benefits arising from the use of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge. Geneva: WIPO Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunderman, R.B. 2008. Giving ourselves: The ethics of anatomical donation. Sciences Education 1: 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, M.G., J. Dillner, C.R. Bartram, J.A. Carlson, and G. Helgesson. 2006. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncology 7(3): 266–269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, K. 2006. Last best gifts: Altruism and the market for human blood and organs. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hinton, J. 1999. The progress of awareness and acceptance of dying assessed in cancer patients and their caring relatives. Palliative Medicine 13(1): 19–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, B. 2009. Broadening consent—and diluting ethics? Journal of Medical Ethics 35(2): 125–129.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kamal, I.S., D.R. Forsyth, and J.R. Jones. 1997. Does it matter who requests necropsies? Prospective study of clinical audit on rate of requests. British Medical Journal 314(7096): 1729.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, H.M., M.A. McBride, W.S. Cherikh, et al. 2002. Transplant tumor registry: Donor related malignancies. Transplantation 74(3): 358–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liaison Committee on Medical Education. 2008. Functions and structure of a medical school: Standards for accreditation of medical education programs leading to the M.D. degree. Liaison Committee on Medical Education; Washington, DC. Accessed 7 March 2012 from http://www.lcme.org/functions2008jun.pdf.

  • Lidz, C.W., P.S. Appelbaum, T. Grisso, and M. Renaud. 2004. Therapeutic misconception and the appreciation of risks in clinical trials. Social Science in Medicine 58(9): 1689–1697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, K.O., J.A. Erlen, and N. Kaminski. 2006. Lessons from our patients: Development of a warm autopsy program. PLoS Medicine 3(7): e234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loughrey, M., W. McCluggage, and P. Toner. 2000. The declining autopsy rate and clinicians’ attitudes. The Ulster Medical Journal 69(2): 83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mascia, L., D. Pasero, A.S. Slutsky, et al. 2010. Effect of a lung protective strategy for organ donors on eligibility and availability of lungs for transplantation. JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association 304(23): 2620–2627.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCullough, M.E., M.B. Kimeldorf, and A.D. Cohen. 2008. An adaptation for altruism: The social causes social effects, and social evolution of gratitude. Current Directions in Psychological Science 17(4): 281–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre J., Pratt C., Antonia T., Gonzalez L., Haura E., Quinn G. P. 2012. Stakeholder perceptions of thoracic rapid tissue donation: An exploratory study. Social Science & Medicine (under review).

  • McMillan, R. 1995. Responsibility to or for in the physician-patient relationship. Journal of Medical Ethics 21(2): 112–115.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McPhee, S.J., K. Bottles, B. Lo, G. Saika, and D. Crommie. 1986. To redeem them from death. Reactions of family members to autopsy. The American Journal of Medicine 80(4): 665–671.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meslin, E. 2010. The value of using top-down and bottom-up approaches for building trust and transparency in biobanking. Public Health Genomics 13(4): 207–214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moore v Regents of the University of California. 1990. 793 P2d 479 (Cal 1990).

  • National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. 2006. Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, 2006. Chicago: National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

  • National Health and Medical Research Council. 1999. National statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngata, P. 2005. Death, dying, and grief: A maori perspective. In Death and bereavement around the world, vol. 30, ed. J.D. Morgan, and P. Laungani. New York, NY: Baywood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organización Nacional de Trasplantes. 2010. The Committee of Experts on the Organisational Aspects of Co-operation in Organ Transplantation. International Figures on Donation and Transplantation. Retrieved 17 March 2012 from http://www.ont.es/publicaciones/Documents/Newsletter2010.pdf.

  • Pentz, R.D., C.B. Cohen, M. Wicclair, et al. 2005. Ethics guidelines for research with the recently dead. Nature Medicine 11(11): 1145–1149.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, L.W., K.B. Nolte, T.D. Warner, et al. 2000. Perceptions of the ethical acceptability of using medical examiner autopsies for research and education. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 124(10): 1485–1495.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, L.W. 2002. Informed consent and the capacity for voluntarism. American Journal of Psychiatry 159(5): 705–712.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblum, A. M., Horvat, L. D., Siminoff, L. A. et al. 2012. The authority of next-of-kin in explicit and presumed consent systems for deceased organ donation: an analysis of 54 nations. Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation. Published online 11 Nov 2012 (e-pub ahead of print).

  • Rubin, M.A., M. Putzi, N. Mucci, et al. 2000. Rapid (“warm”) autopsy study for procurement of metastatic prostate cancer. Clinical Cancer Research 6(3): 1038–1045.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sanner, M. 1994. Attitudes toward organ donation and transplantation. A model for understanding reactions to medical procedures after death. Social Science and Medicine 38(8): 1141–1152.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sanner, M. 2006. People’s attitudes and reactions to organ donation. Mortality 11(2): 133–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, C., I. Lennes, B. Hammes, et al. 2003. Honing an advance care planning intervention using qualitative analysis: The living well interview. Journal of Palliative Medicine 6(4): 593–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, L.A. 1995. Organ transplantation as a transformative experience: anthropological insights into the restructuring of the self. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 9(3): 357–389.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, R. 2010. Perceptions of the gift relationship in organ and tissue donation: Views of intensivists and donor and recipient coordinators. Social Science and Medicine 70(4): 609–615.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, R. 2008. Rethinking reproductive gifts as body projects. Sociology 42(1): 11–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siminoff, L.A., R.M. Arnold, A.L. Caplan, B.A. Virnig, and D.L. Seltzer. 1995. Public policy governing organ and tissue procurement in the United States: Results from the national organ and tissue procurement study. Annals of Internal Medicine 123(1): 10–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siminoff, L.A., and K. Chillag. 1999. The fallacy of the “gift of life”. The Hastings Center Report 29(6): 34–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Snowdon, C., D.R. Elbourne, and J. Garcia. 2004. Perinatal pathology in the context of a clinical trial: Attitudes of neonatologists and pathologists. Archives of Disease in Childhood-Fetal and Neonatal Edition 89(3): F204–F207.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sque, M., S. Payne, and C.J. Macleod. 2007. Gift of life or sacrifice: key discourses for understanding decision-making by families of organ donors. In Organ and tissue donation: An evidence base for practice, ed. M. Sque, and S. Payne, 40–58. Maidenhead, NY: McGraw Hill and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teno, J.M., B.R. Clarridge, V. Casey, et al. 2004. Family perspectives on end-of-life care at the last place of care. JAMA 291(1): 88–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Titmuss, R.M. 1970. The gift relationship: From human blood to social policy. London, United Kingdom: London School of Economics Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R.L. 1971. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology 46(1): 35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ussher, J., L. Kirsten, P. Butow, and M. Sandoval. 2006. What do cancer support groups provide which other supportive relationships do not? The experience of peer support groups for people with cancer. Social Science and Medicine 62(10): 2565–2576.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Valencia Declaration. 2002. http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v2.2/declare.html.

  • Ziebland, S., A. Chapple, C. Dumelow, et al. 2004. How the internet affects patients’ experience of cancer: A Qualitative study. British Medical Journal 328(7439): 564.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zodrow, J.J. 2003. The commodification of human body parts: regulating the tissue bank industry. Southwest University Law Review 32(3): 407–449.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Drive, MRC-CANCONT, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA

    Gwendolyn P. Quinn, Christie Pratt, Teresita Muñoz-Antonia, Lucy Guerra, Matthew B. Schabath, Marino E. Leon & Eric Haura

  2. Jonathan Jaques Children’s Cancer Center, Miller Children’s Hospital, 2801 Atlantic Avenue, Long Beach, CA, 90806, USA

    Devin Murphy

Authors
  1. Gwendolyn P. Quinn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Devin Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christie Pratt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Teresita Muñoz-Antonia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lucy Guerra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthew B. Schabath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marino E. Leon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Eric Haura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gwendolyn P. Quinn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Quinn, G.P., Murphy, D., Pratt, C. et al. Altruism in terminal cancer patients and rapid tissue donation program: does the theory apply?. Med Health Care and Philos 16, 857–864 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-013-9480-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-013-9480-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation