4.3 Article

Proposal to support making decisions about the organ donation process

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS
Volume 49, Issue 6, Pages 434-438

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jme-2022-108323

Keywords

autonomy; transplantation; tissue and organ procurement; decision making; informed consent

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper proposes a novel approach to allow the public to record more nuanced wishes regarding organ donation. The implementation of an online form can provide more detailed information and consider competing wishes, promoting autonomous decision-making and improving confidence in medical staff's actions.
In this paper, we propose a novel approach to permit members of the public opportunity to record more nuanced wishes in relation to organ donation. Recent developments in organ donation and procurement have made the associated processes potentially more multistaged and complex than ever. At the same time, opt-out legislation has led to a more simplistic recording of wishes than ever. We argue that in order to be confident that a patient would really wish to go ahead with the various interventions and procedures that now accompany organ donation, more nuanced information than a simple 'yes' or 'no' may be required. This is of particular importance for donation after circulatory death, where some interventions to facilitate donation occur when the patient is still alive. We propose the implementation of an online form to allow people to record more nuanced wishes in relation to donation, including an indication of competing wishes and how these should be weighed into decision-making. We argue that this approach will promote autonomous decision-making for the public, potentially reduce difficulties that family members encounter at the time of organ donation, and should make medical staff more confident that they are truly acting according to the wishes and best interests of their patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available