Author Topic: forced organ donor status  (Read 9129 times)

alex_trebek

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 462
Re: forced organ donor status
« Reply #50 on: May 12, 2010, 03:31:09 PM »
Quote
Having seen a number of people die while waiting for various transplants, I am in favor of any legal and ethical means to increase donation.  One such hot potato issue being debated is a payment to the donor or donor's family.  Another idea is to put organ donors on the priority list should they themselves ever need a transplant.  I myself have been a donor for 32 years now. 

I disagree with this. I, for whatever reason, prefer for the transaction to be a gift. I wouldn't want my family or anyone else to profit from my gift. Doctors et al are the obvious exception. I have life insurance for that reason.

I had no idea that family members could override the deceased on this matter. I think that should be corrected, if a deceased person is a donor then their organs are fair game as far as I am concerned.

 

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: forced organ donor status
« Reply #51 on: May 12, 2010, 03:51:56 PM »
I assume that if one has a proper will etc stating the preferrence to donate, one's family can't stop it correct?
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,004
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: forced organ donor status
« Reply #52 on: May 12, 2010, 04:06:11 PM »
I assume that if one has a proper will etc stating the preferrence to donate, one's family can't stop it correct?

No, that is not correct.  Although it is usually not explicitly required by law or regulation, the typical practice is to ask the family members for permission to donate, even if the donor has a donor card, living will or other healthcare directive.  Some states do have an explicit legal requirement that the family be asked for permission.  

It would be a very rare healthcare facility that would harvest organs against the wishes of the family based solely on the donor signing a donor card or the like.  Most facilities would have an ethical problem with this or would be concerned from a liability perspective.

So the moral of the story is to not only sign a donor card, but tell your family that you want to be a donor, and make sure that the family member asked for permission says yes.
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: forced organ donor status
« Reply #53 on: May 12, 2010, 04:07:34 PM »
 ???

So if I have a legal document stating my wishes, the hospital will still ask my family and might go against my wishes? What if I'm estranged from my family and explicitly state in my living will that they not be consulted?
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

alex_trebek

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 462
Re: forced organ donor status
« Reply #54 on: May 12, 2010, 04:17:06 PM »
Sounds like it boils down to a basic business decision. Needlessly risk a lawsuit which will cost at least 50kish, even if they win; or do nothing, and hope someone doesn't have to die.

How disapointing. I always thought that if something bad happened to me at least there was a chance of helping someone else.

red headed stranger

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,263
Re: forced organ donor status
« Reply #55 on: May 12, 2010, 04:43:41 PM »
???

So if I have a legal document stating my wishes, the hospital will still ask my family and might go against my wishes? What if I'm estranged from my family and explicitly state in my living will that they not be consulted?

IANAL, but in that situation, I would consider granting power of attorney to someone I really trusted.  However, I'm still not sure that would help if one had family that really wanted to push the issue. 
Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,004
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: forced organ donor status
« Reply #56 on: May 12, 2010, 05:39:50 PM »
Balog, again yes, depending on your state.  If you live in a state that has a 'first-person' consent law on organ donation, the family cannot override the wishes of the organ donor, if the donor has clearly communicated (signed donor card or other legal instrument) his or her intent to donate. Fortunately, a majority of states now have these laws. However, even with these laws, if the family is adamantly against it, most facilities will not harvest the organs.  This is because they think it would be unethical, even though the law may permit it.

Here is an article from a medical journal on ethics that gives some background and explanation as to current practices:


Family Disagreement over Organ Donation
Commentary by Douglas W. Hanto, MD, PhD, Thomas G. Peters, MD, and by Richard J. Howard, MD, PhD, and Danielle Cornell, BSN
The sound of Sam's pager suddenly awakens him. A third-year medical student, Sam is in the midst of his trauma surgery rotation. He rushes to the trauma department and learns that his next patient, Justin Lewis, is a 20-year-old male who was in a major automobile accident. Tested en route to the hospital, Justin had a Glasgowcoma scale score of 3. As Justin is brought to the trauma room, the paramedics tell the attending physician, Dr. Hardy, what they know about the accident. According to the EMTs, Justin fell out of a car that was traveling 70 miles per hour and landed on this head. After an extensive emergency room workup, Justin is declared brain dead. Prior to disconnecting him from the ventilator, the ER staff discovers that he has an organ donor card in his wallet. Familiar with the organ donation procedures, Sam calls the organ procurement agency while Dr. Hardy tells Justin's family the news.

An hour later, Mr. Sterling, a representative from the organ procurement organization arrives at the hospital and introduces himself to the family. Justin's father tells Mr. Sterling that his son definitely wanted to donate his organs, but Justin's mother interjects. She is adamantly opposed to anyone's taking organs out of her son.

Meanwhile, Sam asks Dr. Hardy what the plan for the patient is. Dr. Hardy says that Justin will remain on mechanical ventilation until a final decision is made regarding donation of his organs.

Commentary 1
by Douglas W. Hanto MD, PhD

When the death of a patient is imminent or has occurred, as in the case of Justin, all hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid dollars are required by the Conditions of Participation published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to have protocols in place for notifying the local federally designated organ procurement organization (OPO). This notification is mandatory whether the patient has a signed organ donor card or not. In Justin's case, even if the ER staff had not found an organ donor card in his wallet, Sam would have been correct in calling the OPO. The OPO determines the medical suitability of the potential donor and usually sends a trained organ donation coordinator to the hospital to review the patient's records, speak to the family, clarify health-related information, and request permission for organ donation. Some OPOs have specially trained family counselors who request permission for donation from the family. If the family gives permission, the donation coordinator assumes the medical management of the donor, and all medical costs from the time of declared brain death are billed to the OPO, not to the patient's insurance or family.

The refusal of families to grant permission is a major impediment to organ donation. Several factors have been shown to improve family consent rates. First, the request for organ donation should be separate—or "decoupled"—from the declaration of brain death. This allows the family time to understand and accept the concept of brain death. In this case, Justin's mother may simply need more time to adjust and accept the death of her son. Second, the request for organs should be made by a trained OPO representative along with the hospital staff as a team. It is best that the physician or nurse caring for the patient not discuss organ donation with the family prior to OPO involvement. The hospital staff and OPO donation coordinator can work together to determine the best time to talk to the family. Third, the request should be made in a private and quiet setting. Higher consent rates have been shown to occur when these 3 procedures arefollowed [1].

Even when a patient has a signed organ donation card, the OPO oftenseeks family permission to proceed with donation. The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (1968, revised 1987) established that a signed organ donation card is sufficient to proceed with donation, and it has been confirmed recently that such documents function legally as advance directives. In the UnitedStates, however, it is customary for the OPO to request permission from the next-of-kin due to fear of litigation.

Recently, several states have passed legislation establishing "first-person consent" whereby the family cannot override an individual's documented desire to be an organ donor. Some states have established first-person consent registries for people interested in being deceased organ donors. This is based on the strong belief that the donor's wishes should be adhered to. It is not dissimilar to a last will and testament that disposes of our personal property and assets after we die. Each year more states are passing first-person consent laws that are strongly supported by the OPOs and the transplant community.

Had Justin died in a state with first-person consent laws, the OPO would have informed the family of his pre-existing declaration to be an organ donor and would not have sought the family's permission. First-person consent removes a burden from family members because they do not have to come to a decision while attempting to cope with the very stressful situation of the death of a relative. First-person consent also avoids the problem of family members' disagreement, and it may benefit families later on: more than one-third of families whomade a decision themselves and declined to donate the organs subsequently regretted their decision [2].

In a case such as this one, where the mother and father disagree about organ donation, the donation coordinator would ask the mother why she was opposed to donation and would try to address her specific concerns. The coordinator would emphasize that her son had expressed a desire to donate and that his gift could save and improve the lives of several seriously ill patients. The coordinator would also try to dispel any myths about organ donation that Justin's mother might have heard. It is important for her to understand that her son's body will not be disfigured and that donation will not affect funeral arrangements or viewing of the body. Often times a hospital social worker or pastoral care representative can be called to counsel the family and resolve their disagreement. One of these individuals might have been able to help Justin's mother agree to donation.

Because of the continued shortage of organs for transplantation, it has been argued that we should go beyond first-person consent and adopt the principle of "presumed consent." Presumed consent has been legislated by many European countries with a resulting increase in organ donation rates [3]. Presumed consent is an "opt-out" policy in which everyone is considered an organ donor unless he or she registers opposition. This process contrasts with our current, "opt-in" system, in which the individual or next-of-kin must give explicit consent for organ donation. Individual choice is not removed in either case, but persons opting out have the additional responsibility of documenting their decisions. A recent analysis showed that the opt-out countries had a much higher organ donation rate than opt-in countries [4]. And in an online experiment, responders' decisions about organ donation were dramatically influenced by whether the question was presented as an opt-in or opt-out choice; rates for donation doubled when the default position was opting out and documentation was needed to opt in; that is, to donate.

Once permission has been obtained, the donor is managed medically to maintain optimal organ function [5]. All organs are evaluated for their suitability for transplantation, the donor is screened for infectious diseases (eg, hepatitis, HIV), and blood and tissue types are obtained. The donor information is then entered into the national computer database maintained by UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) where it is matched with wait-listed patients. The computer produces a list of the potential recipients for each of the organs ranked by priority as determined by national organ allocation policies. At that point, the donor coordinator calls the transplant centers where prospective recipients are listed to ensure a recipient will be available and waiting for the organ. The organs are then removed in the hospital operating room, often by several surgical teams from different transplant centers in a manner that is respectful of the decedent and his or her family. The young patient in this case could potentially donate his heart, both lungs, liver, pancreas, both kidneys, and small intestine for transplantation,thereby benefiting as many as 8 recipients. He could help many more patients by being a tissue donor (corneas, skin, bone, blood vessels) as well. Many times families report great satisfaction after organ and tissue donation from knowing that so much good can result from so much pain.

References
Gortmaker SL, Beasley CL, Sheehy E, et al. Improving the request process to increase family consent for organ donation. J Transpl Coord. 1998;8:210-217.
DeJong W, Franz HG, Wolfe SM, et al. Requesting organ donation: an interview study of donor and nondonor families. Am J Crit Care. 1998;7:13-23.
Gundle K. Presumed consent: an international comparison and possibilities for change in the United States. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2005;14:113-118.
Johnson EJ, Goldstein DG. Defaults and donation decisions. Transplantation. 2004;78:1713-1716.
Wood KE, Becker BN, McCartney JG, D'Alessandro AM, Coursin DB. Care of the potential organ donor. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2730-2739.
Douglas W. Hanto, MD, PhD, is the Lewis Thomas Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School and chief of the Division of Transplantation at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts.
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,004
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: forced organ donor status
« Reply #57 on: May 12, 2010, 05:59:02 PM »
Somewhat on point to this thread, I had a case just last week in which a patient in the hospital needed to be discharged to a nursing home.  The patient has dementia and is not legally competent.  The patient has no surviving family and was admitted to the hospital by the person who holds a durable power of attorney (DPOA) for healthcare for the patient.  While the patient was in the hospital, the person holding the DPOA suddenly and unexpectedly died.  The DPOA document made no provision for another person to take over as the DPOA. There is now no person who has the legal authority to make decisions for the patient.  The nursing home will not take the patient if he has no guardian or appointed DPOA.  This means that we have to go to court, at our expense, to have a guardian appointed for the patient.  Our Adult Protective Services tells me that it is my problem and my cost, since this all happened while he was in the hospital.

The nursing staff asked me if we could 'get one of those emergency court orders overnight, like I see on TV'.  I had to tell them that it does not work that way in real life, at least in our county.  It will take several days to even get an emergency guardian ad litem appointed, and several weeks for the permanent guardianship to be done.  Meanwhile, the patient is all better but has to remain in the hospital, and we will be eating that cost, since Medicare will pay little, if any, of it.

The moral of the story is that if you have no family to make decisions for you, and you are smart enough to have a durable power of attorney for healthcare, make sure that the DPOA document is written in such a fashion that someone else takes over if something happens to the first holder of the DPOA.

_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

Brad Johnson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 18,083
  • Witty, charming, handsome, and completely insane.
Re: forced organ donor status
« Reply #58 on: May 12, 2010, 06:09:30 PM »
Can you petition the court for the patient to become a ward of the state, giving them guardian status?

Brad
It's all about the pancakes, people.
"And he thought cops wouldn't chase... a STOLEN DONUT TRUCK???? That would be like Willie Nelson ignoring a pickup full of weed."
-HankB

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,004
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: forced organ donor status
« Reply #59 on: May 12, 2010, 06:23:36 PM »
If the patient is already a client of the Department of Social and Health Services, then paperwork is signed making a DSHS caseworker the DPOA.  If the patient is not already a state client, there is no such paperwork, so you have to go through a court proceeding. The state can be the guardian of last resort.  In most places, there are attorneys or actual companies that work as guardians, and the state prefers you go that route if the ward has the money to pay for it.  In this case, the patient has a pension and some savings, so we will likely go the professional guardian route because that will be a lot quicker.   If the patient was destitute, he would end up on the state's dime.

In this particular situation, the patient is not in any danger and was being adequately cared for in a nursing home prior to his hospital admission.  He cannot go back to the original nursing home, which would have been the neatest solution, since he had already been admitted there by the DPOA.  The new nursing home, and I cannot fault them for this, since I would have given them the same advice, needs their own admission paperwork to be signed by someone with legal authority.

So from the state's point of view, the patient is not in danger, is in a safe place, and has some money.  There is no reason for them to get involved, since it is our problem.  It is not their concern that the hospital is losing lots of money.  This will all end up as a charity writeoff/uncompensated care. This is part of the cost-shifting that you hear about since people with good insurance pay somewhat more to offset the uncompensated care.  But when too much writeoffs occur, hospitals can go out of business.

A lot of these sort of situations don't have a lot of black and white answers.
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.