Does Controlled Donation after Circulatory Death Violate the Dead Donor Rule?

The vital status of patients who are a part of controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) is widely debated in bioethical literature. Opponents to currently applied cDCD protocols argue that they violate the dead donor rule, while proponents of the protocols advocate compatibility. In this article, we argue that both parties often misinterpret the moral implications of the dead donor rule. The rule as such does not require an assessment of a donor's vital status, we contend, but rather an assessment of whether procurement of organs in cDCD cause the death of the donor or not. We then argue that commonly practiced cDCD protocols do not violate the dead donor rule, since the donation does not trigger or cause the death of the donors.

Automated summary

The vital status of patients involved in cDCD is a controversial topic in bioethical literature. This article argues that both opponents and proponents of cDCD protocols often misunderstand the moral implications of the dead donor rule. The authors contend that the rule does not require an assessment of a donor's vital status, but rather whether the procurement of organs in cDCD causes the donor's death. They further argue that commonly practiced cDCD protocols do not violate the dead donor rule as the donation process does not cause the donor's death.