Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Table of cases cited
- Table of selected statutory sources
- Introduction
- 1 Human biological materials
- 2 Interests in the living body and corpse
- 3 Eliciting wishes
- 4 Consent to donation
- 5 Presumed consent
- 6 Informed consent
- 7 Living donation
- 8 Property in human material
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
3 - Eliciting wishes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2014
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Table of cases cited
- Table of selected statutory sources
- Introduction
- 1 Human biological materials
- 2 Interests in the living body and corpse
- 3 Eliciting wishes
- 4 Consent to donation
- 5 Presumed consent
- 6 Informed consent
- 7 Living donation
- 8 Property in human material
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
As Healy states ‘The key question of consent in organ procurement is essentially one about the source and degree of authority over the dead: Who, in principle, controls the decision to procure?’ In this chapter we are primarily considering deceased donors, in so far as it is unambiguously the entitlement of competent living patients rather than others to generally determine the use of their body parts. I seek to address this question of ‘whose wishes count’, to explore the relative weight to be afforded to the wishes of the various actors, and how these should be prioritised and balanced in the event of differences. This necessarily reflects the interests identified in chapter 2, transplanted into a concrete, practical context. Although very much of the material below emanates from the transplantation sphere, it is equally generalisable to the research context.
Who is the donor?
The ‘donor’ is typically equated to the ‘primary decisionmaker’. For instance, Healy states ‘In practice, though, the decision to donate is made by the deceased person’s family or next of kin. They are the real donors’ (my emphasis). This last comment is grounded in the customary practice in the US, which also finds reflection in the UK, Australasia and most other parts of the world with explicit consent systems, and even in some presumed consent jurisdictions. Nonetheless, an alternative view is evolving. The 2006 version of the US Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA), for instance, states that the donor ‘means an individual whose body or part is the subject of an anatomical gift’. The ‘gift’ is that of the person from whose body such material is taken and used. This is no mere semantic quibble.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Human Tissue in Transplantation and ResearchA Model Legal and Ethical Donation Framework, pp. 77 - 98Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
, ‘The body as property: Some philosophical reflections’ (1992) 24(5) Transplantation Proceedings 2143 at 2143.Google ScholarPubMed
, Organ Transplantation: Issues and Recommendations (Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1986) at 31.Google Scholar
, Organ Donation: Opportunities for Action (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006) at 175Google Scholar
, ‘Informed or presumed consent legislative models’, in , and (eds.), Organ and Tissue Donation for Transplantation (London: Arnold, 1997) 344 at 345Google Scholar
, ‘Ethics of organ retrieval’, in (ed.), Organ and Tissue Transplantation in the European Union (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1995) 166 at 167Google Scholar
, ‘Organ donor registers’ (2006) 11(2) Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Mandated choice: The preferred solution to the organ shortage?’ (1992) 152 Archives of Internal Medicine 2421 at 2423CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and , ‘Consenting to donate organs: Whose wishes carry the most weight?’ (1991) 21 Journal of Applied Psychology3;Google ScholarPubMed
, ‘Public attitudes toward human organ donation’ (1985) 17(suppl. 3) Transplantation Proceedings103.Google ScholarPubMed
, ‘Mandated choice: A plan to increase public commitment to organ donation’ (1995) 273(6) Journal of the American Medical Association 504 at 505Google ScholarPubMed
and , ‘A study of the presumptive approach to consent for organ donation: A new solution to an old problem’ (2006) 26 Critical Care Nurse129Google Scholar
and , ‘Closing the organ gap: A reciprocity-based social contract approach’ (2006) 34(2) Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Consent for organ donation – balancing conflicting ethical obligations’ (2008) 358 New England Journal of Medicine 1209 at 1210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, ‘Increasing the supply of human organs for transplantation: A proposal for a system of mandated choice’ (1984) 18 (Summer) Beverley Hills Bar Journal152Google Scholar
, ‘Two steps to three choices: A new approach to mandated choice’ (1999) 8 Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 340 at 343CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and , ‘Modified mandated choice for organ procurement’ (2003) 29 Journal of Medical Ethics157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, ‘Strategies for cadaveric organ procurement: Mandated choice and presumed consent’ (1994) 272 Journal of the American Medical Association809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Routine inquiry about organ donation – an alternative to presumed consent’ 325(17) New England Journal of Medicine 1246 at 1248;
, ‘The shortage of organs for transplantation: Where do we go from here?’ (1991) 325 New England Journal of Medicine1243;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , ‘Who are the donors in organ donation? The family’s perspective in mandated choice’ (1996) 125 Annals of Internal Medicine 70 at 71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and , ‘Public policy, public opinion, and consent for organ donation’ (2001) 10 Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 377 at 380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, ‘Mandated choice for organ donation: Time to give it a try’ (1996) 125 Annals of Internal Medicine 66 at 68CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, ‘Donor registration campaign: Ministry of Public Health involves personal request to 12.2 million Dutch citizens 18+ years’ (2000) 32 Transplantation Proceedings123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and , ‘The effect of forced choice on choice’ (2003) 11 Journal of Marketing Research146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Individual and family consent to organ and tissue donation: Is the current position coherent?’ (2005) 31 Journal of Medical Ethics587CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and , ‘Legal and ethical aspects of organ transplantation in Poland: Past, present, and future problems’ (2003) 35 Transplantation Proceedings 1189 at 1190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and , ‘Potential for organ donation in the United Kingdom: Audit of intensive care records’ (2006) 332 British Medical Journal1124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and , ‘Why relatives do not donate organs for transplants: “Sacrifice” or “gift of life”?’ (2008) 61(2) Journal of Advanced Nursing 134 at 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Organ procurement rates: Does presumed consent legislation really make a difference?’ [2004] 1 Law, Social Justice and Global Development Journal, at . Rates recovered in the latter part of the 1990s.Google Scholar
, and , ‘The 2006 revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act – A law to save lives’ [2007] Health Law Analysis 44 at 45Google Scholar
, ‘Organ donation and retrieval: Whose body is it anyway?’, in and (eds.), Bioethics: An Anthology (London: Blackwell, 2006) 483 at 485.Google Scholar
, ‘Donor registries throughout Europe and their influence on organ donation’ (2003) 35 Transplantation Proceedings 997 at 997CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, ‘A comparison of public attitudes toward autopsy, organ donation, and anatomical dissection: A Swedish survey’ (1994) 271 Journal of the American Medical Association284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The role of the family in cadaveric organ procurement’ (1989) 65 Indiana Law Journal167Google ScholarPubMed
, ‘The newly dead: Mortal remains or organ bank?’, in (ed.), Death, Dying and the Biological Revolution (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989) 197 at 215.Google Scholar
and , ‘Beyond Bristol and Alder Hey: The future regulation of human tissue’ (2005) 13 Medical Law Review 170 at 192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
et al., ‘Organ donation and family decision-making within the Spanish donation system’ (2001) 53 Social Science and Medicine405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and , ‘ (eds.), Organ and Tissue Donation: An Evidence Base for Practice (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2007) 40 at 41
, ‘People’s attitudes and reactions to organ donation’ (2006) 11(2) Mortality 133 at 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Organ Donation and Transplantation: Body Organs as an Exchangeable Socio-Cultural Resource (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2005), p. 49Google Scholar
and , ‘The fallacy of the “gift of life”’ (1999) 29(6) Hastings Center Report 34 at 35Google ScholarPubMed
, ‘The notion of gift-giving and organ donation’ (1994) 8(2) Bioethics127CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and , ‘Gift of life or sacrifice? Key discourses for understanding decision-making by families of organ donors’ (2006) 11(2) Mortality117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Ethics and images in organ transplantation’, in and (eds.), The Transplant Patient: Biological, Psychiatric and Ethical Issues in Organ Transplantation (Cambridge University Press, 2000) 239 at 252.Google Scholar
, The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1954).Google Scholar
and , ‘Organ donation as gift exchange’ (1990) 22(4) Image Journal of Nursing Scholarship 239 at 240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and , ‘The give and take of organ procurement’ (1994) 19 Journal of Medicine and Philosophy61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy (New York: New Press, 1997)Google Scholar
, ‘Bereavement, decision-making and the family in organ donation’, in , and (eds.), Organ Shortage: Ethics, Law and Pragmatism (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming 2010)Google Scholar
, Wrapped in Mourning: The Gift of Life and the Organ Donor Family Trauma (New York: Brunner–Routledge, 2002).Google Scholar