A national conference on organ donation after cardiac death (DCD) was convened to expand the practice of DCD in the continuum of quality end-of-life care.This national conference affirmed the ethical propriety of DCD as not violating the dead donor rule. Further, by new developments not previously reported, the conference resolved controversy regarding the period of circulatory cessation that determines death and allows administration of pre-recovery pharmacologic agents, it established conditions of DCD eligibility, it presented current data regarding the successful transplantation of organs from DCD, it proposed a new framework of data reporting regarding ischemic events, it made specific recommendations to agencies and organizations to remove barriers to DCD, it brought guidance regarding organ allocation and the process of informed consent and it set an action plan to address media issues. When a consensual decision is made to withdraw life support by the attending physician and patient or by the attending physician and a family member or surrogate (particularly in an intensive care unit), a routine opportunity for DCD should be available to honor the deceased donor's wishes in every donor service area (DSA) of the United States. Key words: Deceased organ donation Received 25 July 2005, revised and accepted for publication 24 October 2005A national conference on organ donation after cardiac death (DCD) was convened in Philadelphia on April 7 and 8, 2005, to address the increasing experience of DCD and to affirm the ethical propriety of transplanting organs from such donors. Participants represented the broad spectrum of the medical community, including neuroscientists, critical care professionals and distinguished bioethicists (Appendix 1).Six work groups were assembled to address specific DCD issues and fulfill the conference objectives: (i) determining death by a cardiopulmonary criterion, (ii) assessing medical criteria that predict DCD candidacy following the withdrawal of life support, (iii) reviewing protocols for successful DCD organ recovery and subsequent transplantation, (iv) initiating DCD in donation service areas (DSAs), (v) discussing the allocation of DCD organs for transplantation and (vi) examining perceptions of DCD held by the media and the public. Work Group 1: Determining Death by a Cardiopulmonary CriterionA prospective organ donor's death may be determined by either cardiopulmonary (DCD) or neurologic criteria (donation after brain death [DBD]) (1). The term donation after cardiac death (DCD) clearly indicates that death precedes donation. Death determination in the DCD patient mandates the use of a cardiopulmonary criterion to prove the absence of circulation. The cardiopulmonary criterion may be used when the donor does not fulfill brain death criteria. The ethical axiom of organ donation necessitates adherence to the dead donor rule: the retrieval of organs for transplantation should not cause the death of a donor (2).In clinical situations that fulfill either brain death criteria ...

Summary The critical pathway of deceased donation provides a systematic approach to the organ donation process, considering both donation after cardiac death than donation after brain death. The pathway provides a tool for assessing the potential of deceased donation and for the prospective identification and referral of possible deceased donors.

No abstract

A panel of ethicists, organ procurement organization executives, physicians, and surgeons was convened by the sponsorship of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons to determine whether an ethically acceptable pilot trial could be proposed to provide a financial incentive for a family to consent to the donation of organs from a deceased relative. An ethical methodology was developed that could be applied to any proposal for monetary compensation to elucidate its ethical acceptability. An inverse relationship between financial incentives for increasing the families' consent for cadaver donation that clearly would be ethically acceptable (e.g., a contribution to a charity chosen by the family or a reimbursement for funeral expenses) and those approaches that would more likely increase the rate of donation (e.g., direct payment or tax incentive) was evident. The panel was unanimously opposed to the exchange of money for cadaver donor organs because either a direct payment or tax incentive would violate the ideal standard of altruism in organ donation and unacceptably commercialize the value of human life by commodifying donated organs. However, a majority of the panel members supported reimbursement for funeral expenses or a charitable contribution as an ethically permissible approach. The panel concluded that the concept of the organ as a gift could be sustained by a funeral reimbursement or charitable contribution that conveyed the appreciation of society to the family for their donation. Depending on the amount of reimbursement provided for funeral expenses, this approach could be ethically distinguished from a direct payment, by their intrusion into the realm of altruism and voluntariness. We suggest that a pilot project be conducted to determine whether this kind of a financial incentive would be acceptable to the public and successful in increasing organ donation.

The shortage of deceased-donor organs is compounded by donation metrics that fail to account for the total pool of possible donors, leading to ambiguous donor statistics. We sought to assess potential metrics of organ procurement organizations (OPOs) utilizing data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2009-2012 and State Inpatient Databases (SIDs) from 2008-2014. A possible donor was defined as a ventilated inpatient death ≤75 years of age, without multi-organ system failure, sepsis, or cancer, whose cause of death was consistent with organ donation. These estimates were compared to patient-level data from chart review from two large OPOs. Among 2,907,658 inpatient deaths from 2009-2012, 96,028 (3.3%) were a "possible deceased-organ donor." The two proposed metrics of OPO performance were: (1) donation percentage (percentage of possible deceased-donors who become actual donors; range: 20.0-57.0%); and (2) organs transplanted per possible donor (range: 0.52-1.74). These metrics allow for comparisons of OPO performance and geographiclevel donation rates, and identify areas in greatest need of interventions to improve donation rates. We demonstrate that administrative data can be used to identify possible deceased donors in the US and could be a data source for CMS to implement new OPO performance metrics in a standardized fashion.Abbreviations: AHRQ-NIS, agency for healthcare research and quality-nationwide inpatient sample; DCDD, donation after circulatory determination of death; DNDD, donation after neurologic determination of death; DSA, donor service area; EDCR, eligible death conversion rate; HCUP, healthcare cost and utilization project; HRSA, health resources and services administration; OPO, organ procurement organization; OTPPD, organs transplanted per possible donor; SIDs, state inpatient databases; UNOS, united network for organ sharing