For older children who die, parents or guardians may be able to incorporate what they know about the minor`s values and preferences into their decision about organ donation. For example, a minor may have had a discussion with their parents about donation, perhaps as a result of an organ donation program they experienced at school (Cárdenas et al., 2010; Li et al., 2013). This allows parents or guardians to know if their minor child would have wanted to be a donor or not. This can influence their decision whether or not to approve their child`s donation, reinforcing the need to educate the public about organ donation and related research. This raises the question of whether “transplantation or therapy”, as used in this section, includes research followed by transplantation. It is important to note that several states have already passed laws authorizing the use of organs for research purposes (in addition to transplantation) if only a general intention to donate has been approved (Glazier et al., 2015). RECOMMENDATION 2: All active donor registries in the United States should coordinate to ensure a single, consistent, and secure national donor registry that is easily accessible to organ procurement agencies. All information collected in donor registries by motor vehicle departments should automatically be integrated into this single national registry. In order to facilitate such a merger, model State laws should be prepared.
Discussing organ donation with a surrogate often takes place at a time when the surrogate`s cognitive abilities are being strained due to the sudden crisis of the death of a friend or family member, which is often unexpected. This delicate situation becomes even more complex when the nominee must explain both donation and research options under time pressure and must determine on a case-by-case basis how much information is sufficient, too much or too little. This can put the organ harvesting team at risk of exerting undue and undue influence on the family. Planning ahead using documents for the applicant on the inclusion of donor research as part of transplantation can help reduce stress when making donation decisions. Another section of the UAGA that is relevant to how the approval of donor intervention research should be addressed is Section 11, which prioritizes transplantation or therapy over research or training (see Box 3-2). However, two ambiguities in language complicate the interpretation of how to deal with organ donor intervention research, followed by transplants according to this section. The first ambiguity is the wording of paragraph (d): however, the same authors argue that, from the recipient`s perspective, there is little difference between donor intervention studies that collect recipient data and those that do not; “In both cases, recipients are exposed to similar risks and could receive similar organs. Therefore, research consent requirements should apply equally to all organ recipients, regardless of the researchers` decision to collect recipient data” (Rey et al., 2011, p. 282). Family involvement in the donation process is important for transparency and public trust, whether the donor or a surrogate gives permission.
The surrogate mother and family, who can carry the experience on a personal level for their lives, can influence others in terms of giving. When well managed, the donation process spreads trust and respect, which are essential to the donation and transplantation process (see Chapter 2). UAGA 2006 identifies four different goals of anatomical talent: transplantation, therapy, research or education (see Box 3-1). The problem addressed by the Committee is the link between “transplantation” and “research” or, more precisely, organs that are the subject of research carried out either on a deceased donor or after removal of organs from a deceased donor and then made available for transplantation. A donation for one of the four identified purposes (e.g., transplantation) includes the use of the donation for another purpose (e.g., Research) unless the surrogate has indicated otherwise, e.g., rejected the other purpose at the time of authorization. The 1987 UAGA also waived the requirement for two witnesses to sign the donation document. In addition, he stressed that a person`s decision to donate organs cannot be revoked by others, thus eliminating any uncertainty in this matter. It also gave coroners and coroners the authority to authorize the removal of a “body part” for transplantation under certain conditions if no prior objection from the deceased was known (sometimes incorrectly referred to as “presumed consent”) and efforts were made to contact the next of kin (NCCUSL, 1987). Only 26 states have adopted the 1987 UAGA – other states have adopted inconsistent changes to their anatomical gift laws – resulting in a lack of uniformity across states (NCCUSL, 2006).
In accordance with OPTN guidelines and other medical care standards, transplant recipients go through a clinical consent process prior to undergoing a transplant. From the time of initial ingestion, through the process of inclusion on the transplant waiting list and through the time of offering a particular organ, discussions between the potential recipient and the clinical transplant coordinator, transplant surgeon and other clinicians focus on the risks, processes and opportunities of transplantation. including options related to high-risk organs. Registering on the transplant waiting list informs potential recipients of the policies and processes of the OPTN regarding the collection of a standard dataset used in anonymous form for transplant reporting and statistics. In the context of this report, the Committee focuses on the increased complexity associated with being the recipient of an organ that underwent a pre-transplant research procedure (when the procedure occurred while the organ was with the deceased donor or after it was removed from the donor but prior to transplantation) or the recipient of a non-target organ. who may have been exposed to the research procedure that took place prior to organ removal from the donor. This section examines the effective and ethical application of laws ensuring the protection of human research subjects, with particular attention to the following issues: For the purposes of this report, UAGA emphasizes that a donation specified for transplantation cannot be used for research (if specified) unless it is impossible to: to use this organ for transplantation. This restriction raises the question of whether the conduct of research on the donor or on the donor organ after subsequent transplantation is compatible or contrary to this rule. In other words, would it be correct to say that the organ “was used for transplantation” after the first sentence of subparagraph (d) or to say that the organ “was used for research” under the second sentence of subparagraph (d)? The second sentence only comes into force when the organ “cannot be used for transplantation”, but the intended purpose of the intervention research on organ donors is the act of organ transplantation.
Although research and transplantation follow one another over time due to necessity, they are an interconnected process. However, the organ could not ultimately be transplanted because (1) research rendered the organ unusable; (2) the organ was unusable and has not been repaired by research; or (3) the organ is not transplanted due to other non-research circumstances. However, in the case of donor intervention research, the goal of the research is to improve transplant outcomes for current and future recipients. An important part of the system is the ability to ask surrogate mothers for permission if the donor has not donated or registered a refusal. This is especially true for certain populations where enrolment rates are lower, as the family prefers the decision to donate at the time of death. From an ethical and political perspective, is donor or surrogate authorization required to conduct research on donated organs prior to transplantation? If so, at what level of detail? RECOMMENDATION 3: The National Conference of State Uniform Law Commissioners should consider amendments to the Uniform Anatomical Gifts Act (UAGA) that would clarify the approval of organ donation for research and transplantation.