Abstract

In “Neither Ethical nor Prudent: Why Not to Choose Normothermic Regional Perfusion” Omelianchuk and colleagues offer an exceptionally clear and methodical critique of the ethical and legal permissibility of in situ normothermic regional perfusion (NRP). NRP involves, in part, the reperfusion of organs via extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) after a declaration of death and the occlusion of the arteries supplying blood to the brain. The authors’ main conclusion is that NRP invalidates the declaration of death via the standards set by the Uniform Determination of Death Act (which requires either permanent cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions or irreversible cessation of all brain functions for a determination of death) and thereby violates the Dead Donor Rule (DDR) (which, minimally, requires that organ recovery not be the cause of death). Their arguments for these points, however, are flawed. Most notably, this conclusion rests on mistaken assumptions about the role of circulation in both the UDDA and DDR. A close examination of the role of circulation in sustaining life shows that NRP is consistent with both the UDDA and the DDR.