Background and Purpose: Providing non-therapeutic intensive care for some patients in hopeless condition after cerebrovascular stroke in order to protect their organs for possible post-mortem organ donation after brain death is an effective but ethically tricky strategy to increase organ grafting. Finding out the feelings and opinion of the involved healthcare professionals and assessing the training needs before implementing such a strategy is critical to avoid backlash even in a presumed consent system. Participants and methods: A single-centre opinion survey of (...) healthcare professionals was conducted in 2013 in the potentially involved wards of a French University Hospital: the Neurosurgical, Surgical and Medical Intensive Care Units, the Stroke Unit and the Emergency Department. A questionnaire with multiple-choice questions and one open-ended question was made available in the different wards between February and May 2013. Ethical considerations: The project was approved by the board of the Lorraine University Diploma in Medical Ethics. Results: Of a total of 340 healthcare professionals, 51% filled the form. Only 21.8% received a specific education on brain death, and only 18% on potential donor’s family approach and support. Most healthcare professionals (93%) think that non-therapeutic intensive care is the continuity of patient’s care. But more than 75% of respondents think that the advance patient’s consent and the consent of the family must be obtained despite the presumed consent rule regarding post-mortem organ donation in France. Conclusion: The acceptance by healthcare professionals of non-therapeutic intensive care for brain death organ donation seems fairly good, despite a suboptimal education regarding brain death, non-therapeutic intensive care and families’ support. But they ask to require previously expressed patient’s consent and family’s approval. So, it seems that non-therapeutic intensive care should only remain an ethically sound mean of empowerment of organ donors and their families to make post-mortem donation happen as a full respect of individual autonomy. (shrink)

Protocols for retrieving vital organs in consenting patients in cardiovascular arrest rest on the assumptions that irreversible asystole a) identifies the instant of biological death, and b) is clinically assessable at the time when retrieval of vital organs is possible. Unfortunately both assumptions are flawed. We argue that traditional life/death definitions could be actually inadequate to represent the reality of dying under intensive support, and we suggest redefining NHBD protocols on moral, social, and antrhopological criteria, admitting that irreversible asystole can (...) only equate a clinically determinable point of no return in the process of dying, where organ retrieval can be morally and socially accepted in previously consenting patients. (shrink)

In 1991, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center implemented a policy that permitted the recovery of organs from cadavers pronounced dead using standardized cardiac criteria. This policy allowed families that had made a decision to forgo life sustaining treatment to then request organ donation. This entailed taking the patient to the operating room, discontinuing therapy, and after the patient is pronounced dead, procuring organs.

During the past 50 years since the first successful organ transplant, waiting lists of potential organ recipients have expanded exponentially as supply and demand have been on a collision course. The recovery of organs from patients with circulatory determination of death is one of several effective alternative approaches recommended to reduce the supply-and-demand gap. However, renewed debate ensues regarding the ethical management of the overarching risks, pressures, challenges and conflicts of interest inherent in organ retrieval after circulatory determination of death. (...) In this article, the author claims that through the engagement of a Heideggerean existential phenomenological and hermeneutic framework what are perceived as ethical problems dissolve, including collapse of commitment to the dead donor rule. The author argues for a revisioned socially constructed conceptual and philosophical responsibility of humankind to recognize the limits of bodily finitude, to responsibly use the capacity of the transplantable organs, and to grant enhanced or renewed existence to one with diminished or life-limited capacity; thereby making the locus of ethical concern the donor–recipient as unitary ‘‘life.’ What ethically matters in the life-cycle (life-world) of donor–recipient is the viability of the organs transplanted; thereby granting reverence to all life. (shrink)