Advertisement

Organ Donation: Mandatory Organ Donation Declaration

  • Barbara MaierEmail author
  • Warren A. Shibles†
Chapter
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 47)

Abstract

By not donating or saving the organs for the living we are letting someone die. Presumed donation or presumed refuse? Many more organs are needed than available. How to establish a system of fair distribution? It may be recommended that everyone in a country be required to declare if they wish to donate and only those who are on the list to donate can receive an organ regardless of their wealth, position in society, or political influence. This is not presumed donation, but mandatory declaration of qualification for an organ. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics emphasizes 5 ethically appropriate criteria for the allocation of any limited medical resource. They include likelihood of benefit, urgency of need, change in quality of life, duration of benefit, and the amount of resources required for successful treatment.

Keywords

Organ replacement waiting list allocation transplantation medicine The Uniform Determination of Death Act death requirement presumed refusal to organ donation presumed consent to organ donation family approval for organ donation equality mandatory organ donation declaration 

References

  1. 1.
    Presumed Consent Foundation Presumedconsent.org, associated with OPTN. (www.unos.org)
  2. 2.
    United Network for Organ Sharing. OPTN/UNOS. optn.org/l.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chalas, A.J., Sutherland, E.R. 2005. The importance of innovative efforts to increase organ donation. JAMA 294:1691–1693.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wright, J. ed. 2006. New York times almanac. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Source: United Network for Organ Sharing unos.org/.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gundle, K. 2005. Presumed consent: An international comparison and possibilities for change in the United States. Cambridge Quaterly of Healthcare Ethics 14:113–118; esp.115.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Breyer, F. 2006. What to do about the organ scarcity. Europäische Akademie 62:1–2.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Munson, R. 2002. Raising the dead: Organ transplants, ethics and society, 84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Uniform Determination of Death Act of 1980, which is endorsed by the American Medical Association: http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/fnact99/1980s/udda80.htm. Ad hoc committee of the Harvard Medical School. 1968. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to examine the definition of brain death. Journal of AMA 205:85–88.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Munson, R. 2002. Raising the dead: Organ transplants, ethics and society, 92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Medical Association Council’s Guidelines for the Transplantation of Organs. 1995. Opinion 2.16; AMA 1995. Anencephalic neonates as organ donors. JAMA 273:1614–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Munson, R. 2002. Raising the dead: Organ transplants, ethics and society, 144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, CEJA Report C–I-88 An encephalic Infants as Organ Donors.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Freedman, B. 1988. The anencephalic organ donor: affect, analysis, and ethics. Transplantation Proceedings 20(Suppl 5):57–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manninen, D., and Evans, R. 1985. Public attitudes and behavior regarding organ donation. JAMA 253:3111–3115; esp. 3114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gallup Poll, Partnership for Organ Donation. Organ Donor Gov. 2005 National Survey of Organ and Tissue Donation Attitudes and Behaviors http://organdonor.gov/survey2005/introduction.shtm
  17. 17.
    Veatch, R., and Pitt, J. 1995. The myth of presumed consent: Ethical problems in new organ procurement strategies. Transplantation Proceedings 27:1888–1892.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McConnell, T. 2000. Inalienable rights: The limits of consent in medicine and law, 124 ff. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Medical Ethics Today 2004: 435.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gill, M. 2004. Presumed consent, autonomy, and organ donation. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29:37–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ross, J. ed. 1986. Handbook for hospital ethics committees, 151. Chicago: American Hospital Publications.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kurzweil, R., and Grossman, T. 2004. Fantastic Voyage: Live long enough to live forever, 256. New York: Plume (orig. Rodale).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gill, M. 2004. Presumed consent, autonomy, and organ donation. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29:37–59; esp.49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    www.presumedconsent.org (Associated with OPTN).
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Caplan, A. 1992. If I were a rich man could I buy a pancreas? And other essays on the ethics of health care. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Caplan, A., and Zink, S. 2004. Is PC the answer to closing the organ availability gap? Internet article available July, 22, 2004.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    http://www.eurotransplant.nl/files/annual_report/ar_2008.pdf and Council of Europe, Newsletter Transplant 2008. 13 containing figures on organ donation and transplantation 2007:24–41 http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/health/Source/2007transplantNWSLTTR_en.pdf; compare Austrian Federal Institute for Health: see below.
  29. 29.
    Veatch, R. 1995. The myth of presumed consent: ethical problems in new organ procurement strategies. Transplantation Proceedings 27:1888–1892.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gundle, K. 2005. Presumed consent: An international comparison and possibilities for change in the United States. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 14:113–118; esp.116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Harris, J. 1975. The survival lottery. Philosophy 50:81–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Daniels, N. 1999. Meeting the challenges of justice and rationing. In Meaning in medicare: Reader in the philosophy of health care, ed. Nelson, J., 265–288; esp. 283 New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Beauchamp, T., and Childress, J. 1994. Principles of biomedical ethics, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kilner, J. 1990. Who lives? Who dies?, 198 New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Singer, P. 1977. Utility and the survival lottery. Philosophy 52:218–222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McConnell, T. 2000. Inalienable rights: The limits of consent in medicine and law, 124 ff. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    McConnell, T. 2000. Inalienable rights: the limits of consent in medicine and law, 127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    AMA 4/26/04 resolution.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kravinsky, Z. 2005. Niemand sollte zwei Häuser haben. Geowissen 35:44Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Glannon, W. 1998. Responsibility, alcoholism and liver transplantation. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23:31–49; esp. 44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Munson, R. 2002. Raising the dead: organ transplants, ethics and society, 65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    McConnell, T. 2000. Inalienable rights: The limits of consent in medicine and law, 125. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Peters, D. 1986. Rationales for organ donation: Charity or duty? Journal of Medical Humanities and Bioethics 7:106–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Peters, D. 1986. Rationales for organ donation: Charity or duty? Journal of Medical Humanities and Bioethics 7:106–121; esp.118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Der Spiegel 1997, March 3rd, 10:237.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Breyer, F. 2003. Financial incentives for organ donors? Europäische Akademie Newsletter 40:1–2.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jonsen, A. 1998. The birth of bioethics, 202, 203. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Breyer, F. 2006. What to do about the organ scarcity? Europäische Akademie Newsletter 62:1–2.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    AMA Opinion 2.03. 2005. Allocation of Limited Resources, 9. Chicago, IL: Code of Medical Ethics.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gill, M. 2004. Presumed consent, autonomy, and organ donation. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29:37–59; esp. 52–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsParacelsus Medical University SALKSalzburgAustria
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin–WhitewaterWhitewaterUSA

Personalised recommendations