Journal of transplant coordination : official publication of the North American Transplant Coordinators Organization (NATCO)最新文献

The term noncompliant patient may evoke the image of a difficult, demanding, and troublesome patient. In the transplant environment, patients who are unable or unwilling to adhere to a prescribed plan of treatment raise a number of medical, ethical, and other concerns with respect to individual patient care. Their behavior also raises questions of justice and fairness, especially in light of the limited numbers of transplantable organs available and the very large number of people who are waiting for a transplant. Patients who are unable to do what is necessary to maintain a transplanted organ may create a moral dilemma for the healthcare providers who treat them. This article will (1) attempt to develop a more complete understanding of "patient noncompliance," (2) address concerns that arise both before and after the transplant, and (3) suggest strategies for dealing with noncompliant patients.

The Questionnaire on Prolonging and Shortening Life was developed to assess the views of medical personnel regarding brain death, organ procurement policies, and related issues. The questionnaire was completed by 189 transplant physicians, 197 clinical coordinators, 150 medical students, and 70 nursing students. Ninety-five percent supported the so-called dead donor rule. What this rule means in practice appeared unclear among the population. More than 60% supported procuring organs from anencephalic and "higher brain-dead" patients, although patients in both groups are not dead by current legal standards. Performance on items relating to so-called non-heart-beating organ donation suggested that 75% of the group do not support non-heart-beating organ donation without assurance that the donors are brain-dead before procurement begins. Given that current recommendations to increase organ donation look to non-heart-beating organ donation rather than to anencephalic patients and those in a persistent vegetative state, these findings suggest that further ethical discussion and analysis are urgently needed.

Living related donors are an increasing source of organs for transplantation. Although the use of this type of donation is widespread in the United States, the practice of placing donors at risk for injury or illness without physical benefit can create ethical dilemmas for health professionals dedicated to healing and avoiding harm. It is important for transplantation professionals to be familiar with the risks and benefits associated with living donation within their own specialty area. Placing living donation within an ethical framework can allow for careful consideration and guide decision making in each individual case. Drawing upon the literature for examples from several of the transplantation specialty areas, this article reviews some of the risks and benefits associated with living donation and identifies the limits of the utilitarian and casuistic ethical framework in guiding decision making in living donation. An ethical framework of virtue-principlism is offered as one which is grounded in an understanding of what it is to be human and in the nature of the health professional-patient relationship.

Context: Despite its pivotal nature, until the early 1990s the role of medical examiners, coroners, and justices of the peace was largely ignored in discussions of the critical shortage of organs for transplantation in the United States. These officials have the right to determine, from a medico-legal perspective, whether a deceased person can be an organ donor. Thus, they play an important role in the donation process. Using a principles-based ethical framework, this article examines the problem of nonrecovery of life-saving organs for transplantation in the United States because a medical examiner or other official denies recovery.

Objective: The goals of organ donation and the collection of forensic evidence are not mutually exclusive. An analysis of the ethical principles and obligations of beneficence, respect for autonomy, and justice reveals that medical examiners and other officials could probably, after appropriate review, release all cases under their jurisdiction for organ donation.

Conclusion: Medical examiners, coroners, and justices of the peace could assume a leadership role, working together on public policy with medical, social, and legal groups, spearheading efforts to stop the loss of organs due to official denials, up to and including state and federal regulation and legislation. Beyond their professional obligations, as agents of a social institution, medical examiners and other officials have the more general ethical responsibility of promoting the public health and welfare and of reinforcing societal consensus that transplantation is a social good which should be optimized through formal and informal activities.

Improvements in transplantation techniques have resulted in a demand for transplantable organs that far outpaces supply. Present efforts to secure organs use an altruistic system designed to appeal to a public that will donate organs because they are needed. Efforts to secure organs under this system have not been as successful as hoped. Many refinements to the altruistic model have been or are currently being proposed, such as "required request," "mandated choice," "routine notification," and "presumed consent." Recent calls for market approaches to organ procurement reflect growing doubts about the efficacy of these refinements. Market approaches generally use a "futures market," with benefits payable either periodically or when or if organs are procured. Lump-sum arrangements could include donations to surviving family or contributions to charities or to funeral costs. Possibilities for a periodic system of payments include reduced premiums for health or life insurance, or a reciprocity system whereby individuals who periodically reaffirm their willingness to donate are given preference if they require a transplant. Market approaches do raise serious ethical issues, including potential exploitation of the poor. Such approaches may also be effectively proscribed by the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act.