Casting Light and Doubt on Uncontrolled DCDD Protocols

Differential impact of opt-in, opt-out policies on deceased organ donation rates: a mixed conceptual and empirical study

OBJECTIVES

To increase postmortem organ donation rates, several countries are adopting an opt-out (presumed consent) policy, meaning that individuals are deemed donors unless they expressly refused so. Although opt-out countries tend to have higher donation rates, there is no conclusive evidence that this is caused by the policy itself. The main objective of this study is to better assess the direct impact of consent policy defaults per se on deceased organ recovery rates when considering the role of the family in the decision-making process. This study does not take into account any indirect effects of defaults, such as potential psychological and behavioural effects on individuals and their relatives.

DESIGN

Based on previous work regarding consent policies, we created a conceptual model of the decision-making process for deceased organ recovery that included any scenario that could be directly influenced by opt-in or opt-out policies. We then applied this model to internationally published data of the consent process to determine how frequently policy defaults could apply.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We measure the direct impact that opt-in and opt-out policies have per se on deceased organ recovery.

RESULTS

Our analysis shows that opt-in and opt-out have strictly identical outcomes in eight out of nine situations. They only differ when neither the deceased nor the family have expressed a preference and defaults therefore apply. The direct impact of consent policy defaults is typically circumscribed to a range of 0%-5% of all opportunities for organ recovery. Our study also shows that the intervention of the family improves organ retrieval under opt-in but hinders it under opt-out.

CONCLUSIONS

This study may warn policy makers that, by emphasising the need to introduce presumed consent to increase organ recovery rates, they might be overestimating the influence of the default and underestimating the power granted to families.

Brain death debates: from bioethics to epistemology

50 years after its introduction, brain death remains controversial among scholars. The debates focus on one question: is brain death a good criterion for determining death? This question has been answered from various perspectives: medical, metaphysical, ethical, and legal or political. Most authors either defend the criterion as it is, propose some minor or major revisions, or advocate abandoning it and finding better solutions to the problems that brain death was intended to solve when it was introduced. In short, debates about brain death have been characterized by partisanship, for or against. Here I plead for a non-partisan approach that has been overlooked in the literature: the epistemological or philosophy of science approach. Some scholars claim that human death is a matter of fact, a biological phenomenon whose occurrence can be determined empirically, based on science. We should take this claim seriously, whether we agree with it or not. The question is: how do we know that human death is a scientific matter of fact? Taking the epistemological approach means, among other things, examining how the determination of human death became an object of scientific inquiry, exploring the nature of the brain death criterion itself, and analysing the meaning of its core concepts such as "irreversibility" and "functions".

Brain death debates: from bioethics to philosophy of science

50 years after its introduction, brain death remains controversial among scholars. The debates focus on one question: is brain death a good criterion for determining death? This question has been answered from various perspectives: medical, metaphysical, ethical, and legal or political. Most authors either defend the criterion as it is, propose some minor or major revisions, or advocate abandoning it and finding better solutions to the problems that brain death was intended to solve when it was introduced. Here I plead for a different approach that has been overlooked in the literature: the philosophy of science approach. Some scholars claim that human death is a matter of fact, a biological phenomenon whose occurrence can be determined empirically, based on science. We should take this claim seriously, whether we agree with it or not. The question is: how do we know that human death is a scientific matter of fact? Taking the philosophy of science approach means, among other things, examining how the determination of human death became an object of scientific inquiry, exploring the nature of the brain death criterion itself, and analysing the meaning of its core concepts such as "irreversibility" and "functions".

Ethical considerations in the use of pre-mortem interventions to support deceased organ donation: A scoping review

AIM

Pre-mortem interventions (PMIs) are performed on patients before the determination of death in order to preserve or enhance the possibility of organ donation. These interventions can be ethically controversial, and we thus undertook a scoping review of the ethical issues surrounding diverse PMIs.

METHODS

Using modified scoping review methods, we executed a search strategy created by an information specialist. Screening and iterative coding of each article was done by two researchers using qualitative thematic analysis, and narrative summaries of coded themes were presented.

RESULTS

We identified and screened 5365 references and coded 196 peer-reviewed publications. The most frequently cited issues were related to possible harms to the patient who is a potential donor, and legitimacy of consent. The most controversial issue was that PMIs may place patients at risk for physical harm, yet benefit is accrued mainly to recipients. Some authors argued that lack of direct medical benefit to the still living patient precluded valid consent from surrogate decision makers (SDMs), while many stated that some medical risk could be approved by SDMs if it aligns with non-medical benefits valued by the patient.

CONCLUSION

PMIs require consensus that benefit includes concepts beyond medical benefit to the patient who is a potential donor. Informed consent must be confirmed for each PMI and not assumed to be part of general consent for donation. Risk must be proportionate to the potential benefit and newly proposed interventions should be reviewed carefully for medical efficacy and potential risks.

Uncontrolled DCD: When Should We Stop Trying to Save the Patient and Focus on Saving the Organs?

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory death, which occurs when an individual has experienced unexpected cardiac arrest, usually not in a hospital, generates both excitement and concern. On the one hand, uDCD programs have the capacity to significantly increase organ donation rates, with good transplant outcomes-mainly for kidneys, but also for livers and lungs. On the other hand, uDCD raises a number of ethical challenges. In this essay, we focus on an issue that is central to all uDCD protocols: When should we cease resuscitation and shift to organ preservation? Do current uDCD protocols prematurely consider as potential donors patients who could still have some chances of meaningful survival? Can the best interest of patients be fostered once they are considered and treated as potential donors?

Organ donation protocols

Organ transplantation improves survival and quality of life in patients with end-organ failure. Waiting lists continue to grow across the world despite remarkable advances in the transplantation process, from the creation of public engagement campaigns to the development of critical pathways for the timely identification, referral, approach, and treatment of the potential organ donor. The pathophysiology of dying triggers systemic changes that are intimately related to organ viability. The intensive care management of the potential organ donor optimizes organ function and improves the donation yield, representing a significant step in reducing the mismatch between organ supply and demand. Different beliefs and cultures reflect diverse legislations and donation practices amongst different countries, creating a challenge to standardized practices. Maintaining public trust is necessary for continued progress in organ donation and transplantation, hence the urge for a joint effort in creating uniform protocols that ensure transparent practices within the medical community.

Uncontrolled Donation After Circulatory Determination of Death: A Systematic Ethical Analysis

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (uDCDD) refers to organ donation after a refractory cardiac arrest. We analyzed ethical issues raised by the uDCDD protocols of France, Madrid, and New York City. We recommend: (1) Termination of resuscitation (TOR) guidelines need refinement, particularly the minimal duration of resuscitation efforts before considering TOR; (2) Before enrolling in an uDCDD protocol, physicians must ascertain that additional resuscitation efforts would be ineffective; (3) Inclusion in an uDCDD protocol should not be made in the outpatient setting to avoid error and conflicts of interest; (4) The patient's condition should be reassessed at the hospital and reversible causes treated; (5) A no-touch period of at least 10 minutes should be respected to avoid the risk of autoresuscitation; (6) Once death has been determined, no procedure that may resume brain circulation should be used, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, artificial ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; (7) Specific consent is required prior to entry into an uDCDD protocol; (8) Family members should be informed about the goals, risks, and benefits of planned uDCDD procedures; and (9) Public information on uDCDD is desirable because it promotes public trust and confidence in the organ donation system.

Balancing Legitimate Critical-Care Interests: Setting Defensible Care Limits Through Policy Development

Critical-care decision making is highly complex, given the need for health care providers and organizations to consider, and constructively respond to, the diverse interests and perspectives of a variety of legitimate stakeholders. Insights derived from an identified set of ethics-related considerations have the potential to meaningfully inform inclusive and deliberative policy development that aims to optimally balance the competing obligations that arise in this challenging, clinical decision-making domain. A potential, constructive outcome of such policy engagement is the collaborative development of an as-fair-as-possible dispute resolution process that incorporates an appropriated-justified, defensible critical-care obligation threshold.

Protocols for uncontrolled donation after circulatory death: a systematic review of international guidelines, practices and transplant outcomes

INTRODUCTION

A chronic shortage of organs remains the main factor limiting organ transplantation. Many countries have explored the option of uncontrolled donation after circulatory death (uDCD) in order to expand the donor pool. Little is known regarding the variability of practices and outcomes between existing protocols. This systematic review addresses this knowledge gap informing policy makers, researchers, and clinicians for future protocol implementation.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar electronic databases from 2005 to March 2015 as well as the reference lists of selected studies, abstracts, unpublished reports, personal libraries, professional organization reports, and government agency statements on uDCD. We contacted leading authors and organizations to request their protocols and guidelines. Two reviewers extracted main variables. In studies reporting transplant outcomes, we added type, quantity, quality of organs procured, and complications reported. Internal validity and the quality of the studies reporting outcomes were assessed, as were the methodological rigour and transparency in which a guideline was developed. The review was included in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (Prospero, CRD42014015258).

RESULTS

Six guidelines and 18 outcome studies were analysed. The six guidelines are based on limited evidence and major differences exist between them at each step of the uDCD process. The outcome studies report good results for kidney, liver, and lung transplantation with high discard rates for livers.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite procedural, medical, economic, legal, and ethical challenges, the uDCD strategy is a viable option for increasing the organ donation pool. Variations in practice and heterogeneity of outcomes preclude a meta-analysis and prevented the linking of outcomes to specific uDCD protocols. Further standardization of protocols and outcomes is required, as is further research into the role of extracorporeal resuscitation and other novel therapies for treatment of some refractory cardiac arrest. It is essential to ensure the maintenance of trust in uDCD programs by health professionals and the public.

What does "presumed consent" might presume? Preservation measures and uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death

One of the most controversial aspects in uncontrolled (out-of-hospital) donation of organs after circulatory death (uDCD) is the initiation of preservation measures before death. I argue that in so-called opting-out systems only under very stringent conditions we might presume consent to the instauration of those measures. Given its current legal framework, I claim that this is not the case of Spain, a well-known country in which consent is presumed-albeit only formally-and where uDCD is currently practiced.

Donation after cardiac death and the emergency department: ethical issues

Organ donation after cardiac death (DCD) is increasingly considered as an option to address the shortage of organs available for transplantation, both in the United States and worldwide. The procedures for DCD differ from procedures for donation after brain death and are likely less familiar to emergency physicians (EPs), even as this process is increasingly involving emergency departments (EDs). This article explores the ED operational and ethical issues surrounding this procedure.