Determining Death in Uncontrolled DCDD Organ Donors

The most controversial issue in organ donation after the circulatory determination of death is whether the donor was truly dead at the moment death is declared. My colleagues and I further analyzed this issue by showing the relevance of the distinction between the “permanent” and the “irreversible”...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Bernat, James L. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Interlibrary Loan:Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany)
Published: 2013
In: The Hastings Center report
Year: 2013, Volume: 43, Issue: 1, Pages: 30-33
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002c 4500
001 1937535770
003 DE-627
005 20251002055627.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 251002s2013 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1002/hast.129  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1937535770 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1937535770 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Bernat, James L.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Determining Death in Uncontrolled DCDD Organ Donors 
264 1 |c 2013 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a The most controversial issue in organ donation after the circulatory determination of death is whether the donor was truly dead at the moment death is declared. My colleagues and I further analyzed this issue by showing the relevance of the distinction between the “permanent” and the “irreversible” loss of circulatory functions. Permanent cessation means that circulatory function will not return because it will not be restored spontaneously and medical attempts to restore it will not be conducted. By contrast, irreversible cessation means that circulatory function cannot be restored using currently available technology. In this issue of the Report, Kevin Munjal and colleagues criticize the unjustified application of the permanent-irreversible distinction, which my colleagues and I developed for cDCDD, to their well-designed and carefully conducted experimental protocol of uncontrolled DCDD (uDCDD) in New York City, for which our analysis was not targeted. They claimed that to determine a donor's death in uDCDD, it is unnecessary to show that permanence is a valid surrogate indicator of irreversibility because the unsuccessful attempt to resuscitate the patient comprises prima facie evidence of circulatory irreversibility. Ironically, that potent justification defending death determination in uDCDD yields limitations that are similar to those created when our permanent-irreversible distinction is applied to death determination in cDCDD. 
601 |a Determination 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |a Hastings Center  |t The Hastings Center report  |d Malden, Mass. : Wiley, 1971  |g 43(2013), 1, Seite 30-33  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)341346551  |w (DE-600)2067369-3  |w (DE-576)258761822  |x 1552-146X  |7 nnas 
773 1 8 |g volume:43  |g year:2013  |g number:1  |g pages:30-33 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.129  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hast.129  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
912 |a NOMM 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 477966196X 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1937535770 
LOK |0 005 20251002055627 
LOK |0 008 251002||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2025-09-26#68C84FB41586C7C2D245E96FBDFD4246A76C29D9 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixrk  |a ixzs  |a zota  |a tiep 
ORI |a TA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw