4.3 Article

Eligibility for organ donation: a medico-legal perspective on defining and determining death

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-009-9130-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Health Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose In the context of post-mortem organ donation, there is an obvious need for certainty regarding the legal definition and determination of death, as individuals must be legally pronounced dead before organs may be procured for donation. Surprisingly then, the legal situation in Canada with regard to the definition and determination of death is uncertain. The purpose of this review is to provide anesthesiologists and critical care specialists with a medicolegal perspective regarding the definition and determination of death (particularly as it relates to nonheart-beating donor protocols) and to contribute to ongoing improvement in policies, protocols, and practices in this area. Principal findings The status quo with regard to the current legal definition of death is presented as well as the criteria for determining if and when death has occurred. A number of important problems with the status quo are described, followed by a series of recommendations to address these problems. Conclusions The legal deficiencies regarding the definition and determination of death in Canada may place health care providers at risk of civil or criminal liability, discourage potential organ donation, and frustrate the wishes of some individuals to donate their organs. The definition and criteria for the determination of death should be clearly set out in legislation. In addition, the current use of non-heart-beating donor protocols in Canada will remain inconsistent with Canadian law until more persuasive evidence on the potential return of cardiac function after cardiac arrest is gathered and made publicly available or until a concrete proposal to abandon the dead donor rule and amend Canadian law is adopted following a process of public debate and intense multidisciplinary review.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据