You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 285 No. 3, January 17, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Special Communication
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (32)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related letter
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Medical Practice
 •Medical Ethics
 •Transplantation
 •Transplantation, Other
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

The Consent Process for Cadaveric Organ Procurement

How Does It Work? How Can It Be Improved?

Dave Wendler, PhD; Neal Dickert, BA

JAMA. 2001;285:329-333.

Context  Understanding the consent process that organ procurement organizations (OPOs) use is crucial to improving the process and thereby reducing the number of individuals who die each year for want of an organ transplant. However, no data exist on OPOs' current consent practices.

Objective  To assess whose wishes OPOs follow when procuring solid organs from deceased individuals and whether advance directives and computerized registries might improve the consent process for solid organ procurement.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Telephone survey conducted from June to August 1999 of all 61 active OPOs.

Main Outcome Measures  Responses to the 49-question survey addressing consent practices in specific scenarios of deceased and next of kin wishes.

Results  Widespread divergence exists in OPOs' consent practices for cadaveric solid organ procurement. Regarding overall consent practices, 19 (31%) OPOs reported that they follow the deceased's wishes, 19 (31%) follow the next of kin's wishes, 13 (21%) procure organs if neither party objects, 8 (13%) procure organs if either party consents or neither objects, and 2 (3%) do not follow any of these 4 overall practices. These differences appear to be traceable to implicit ethical disagreements about whose wishes should be followed. A total of 29 (48%) OPOs reported having an official policy to address whether they follow the family's or deceased's wishes. Regarding factors that influence OPOs' choice of consent practice, 29 (48%) respondents ranked impact on the deceased's family as the most important factor, 13 (21%) ranked state law as most important, and 7 (11%) ranked the priority of the deceased's wishes as most important. Durable power of attorney appeared to have substantial weight in OPOs' decisions; for example, in the scenario in which the deceased supported organ donation and the next of kin opposed it, 34 (56%) OPOs reported they were likely to procure organs based on the consent of the holder of the deceased's durable power of attorney, whereas only 7 (11%) reported they were likely to procure organs based on a document of gift (a living will, donor card, or driver's license).

Conclusions  Expanding the legal scope of living wills to cover individuals' organ donation preferences would likely have little impact on procurement rates. In contrast, expanding the legal scope of durable powers of attorney for health care may have a significant impact. A national discussion should take place addressing the underlying ethical issues that appear to account for much of the divergence among OPOs' consent practices for cadaveric solid organ procurement.


Author Affiliations: Department of Clinical Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED LETTER

Attitudes and Practices in Postmortem Organ Procurement
Nirmala D. Ramalingam, Elisa J. Gordon, Lainie Ross, Susan Gunderson, Dave Wendler, Neal Dickert, and Alexander Morgan Capron
JAMA. 2001;285(15):1958-1960.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED ARTICLES

Reexamining Organ Transplantation
Alexander M. Capron
JAMA. 2001;285(3):334-336.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

January 17, 2001
JAMA. 2001;285(3):347-348.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

A Statewide Public Health Approach to Improving Organ Donation: The Massachusetts Organ Donation Initiative
Koh et al.
AJPH 2007;97:30-36.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Closing the Organ Gap: A Reciprocity-Based Social Contract Approach
Siegal and Bonnie
J Law Med Ethics 2006;34:415-423.
 

Efficacy of an educational programme for secondary school students on opinions on renal transplantation and organ donation: a randomized controlled trial
Piccoli et al.
Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006;21:499-509.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The value of an ethics history?
Das and Mulley
JRSM 2005;98:262-266.
FULL TEXT  

The altruistic act of asking
Kirklin
J. Med. Ethics 2003;29:193-195.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Solid Organ Donation Between Strangers
Ross
J Law Med Ethics 2002;30:440-445.
 

Attitudes and Practices in Postmortem Organ Procurement
Ramalingam et al.
JAMA 2001;285:1958-1960.
FULL TEXT  

Reexamining Organ Transplantation
Capron
JAMA 2001;285:334-336.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2001 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.