Informed consent honors the autonomous decisions of patients, and family consent places importance on decisions made by their families. However, there is little understanding of the relationship between these two medical decision-making approaches. Both approaches exist in Japan as part of its truth disclosure policy. What is the status of family consent in the United States, from which Japan introduced informed consent? This paper compares the situation in the United States with that in Japan, where family consent has been combined (...) with informed consent. It then explains the history of policy development through which family consent was added to informed consent in the United States. Based on this analysis, the paper suggests that the relationship between informed consent and family consent in the United States was established on the basis of a family model that places more importance on trust-based relationships than it does on blood ties. (shrink)

The family of a patient who is unconscious and respirator-dependent has made a decision to discontinue medical treatment. The patient had signed a donor card. The family wants to respect this decision, and agrees to non-heart-beating organ donation. Consequently, as the patient is weaned from the ventilator, he is prepped for organ explantation. Two minutes after the patient goes into cardiac arrest, he is declared dead and the transplant team arrives to begin organ procurement. At the time retrieval begins, it (...) is not certain that the patient's brain is dead or that cardiac function cannot be restored. Procurement follows uneventfully, and two transplantable kidneys are retrieved. (shrink)

The family of a patient who is unconscious and respirator-dependent has made a decision to discontinue medical treatment. The patient had signed a donor card. The family wants to respect this decision, and agrees to non-heart-beating organ donation. Consequently, as the patient is weaned from the ventilator, he is prepped for organ explantation. Two minutes after the patient goes into cardiac arrest, he is declared dead and the transplant team arrives to begin organ procurement. At the time retrieval begins, it (...) is not certain that the patient's brain is dead or that cardiac function cannot be restored. Procurement follows uneventfully, and two transplantable kidneys are retrieved.Many people now consider such cases of non-heart-beating organ donation to be ethically permissible. However, widespread disagreement persists as to how such practices are to be justified and whether such practices are compatible with the Uniform Declaration of Death Act. In this paper, I argue that non-heart-beating organ donation can be ethically justified, that in the justified cases the patients are in fact dead, and that the early declarations of death required for such donation do comply with the UDDA. (shrink)

Disputes over life-sustaining treatment between clinicians and patients or their surrogates are common in the intensive care unit and expected to increase in America because of an aging population, shifts in medical training, and trends in popular opinions on end-of-life decisions. Clinicians struggle to effectively communicate the recommendation that withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is appropriate when the burdens of treatment outweigh the benefits. This view seems foreign and unimaginable to surrogates like family members with deeply held values motivate them to insist (...) “everything be done” as long as the patient can be physiologically kept alive. For over three decades now, clinicians and bioethicists have sought preventative ethical and policy solutions to avoid or resolve these treatment disputes, including efforts to improve the communication between medical professionals and surrogates. Looking at the history of proposed solutions shows that giving providers more and better communication and negotiation tools may be inadequate on its own. However, better communication has the potential to unearth the motivations and deeper values of the disagreeing parties so that differing perspectives can be recognized and common ground can be established. The latest emphasize on communication has the potential to succeed where other historical solutions have failed. If bioethics is going to successfully analyze and remedy these disputes, the values motivating these views, even ones outside the bioethical consensus, must be acknowledged and respected. In short, better communication will not avoid or resolve life-sustaining treatment disputes in the intensive care unit unless the deeper ethical convictions of the disagreeing parties are recognized and engaged. (shrink)