What Is the Current Law on Organ Donation

Preventive medicine means exactly what its name suggests: to keep people healthy so they don`t get sick. Some of the most common preventive measures include a healthy diet, exercise, getting enough rest, not smoking, not drinking too much, and preventive medications that stop or slow physical decline. If you live more responsibly early in life, you may not need a transplantable organ later in life. To be fair, there is a questionable workaround in the law itself. A commentary to section 11 states: “If a donation under section 4 is limited to transplantation or therapy under paragraph 11(e) or (f), procurement agencies may target persons with priority for donations under section 9 in order to extend the purpose of the donation to research or education and to obtain their consent to use the donation for those purposes. if the donation is not suitable for transplantation or therapy. This seems to suggest that the OCT could contact a family of donors and ask them to expand their donation to allow not only “transplantation,” but “research with subsequent transplantation.” It is not clear whether the authors intended to use this provision in this way because they included the reserve “in the event that the donation is not suitable for transplantation or therapy”, which is not true for the type of research that is the subject of this report. Washington State`s law governing organ harvesting is included in the revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. (1) The law regulates, among other things, who can donate organs, who can receive a given organ, and what obligations hospitals and doctors have to facilitate donations. Organ donation is commonly referred to in the law as “anatomical administration”. The law deals with increasing organ donation and reducing the ratio of available organs to people who need a transplant. 42 CFR ยง 121.11 describes the registration and reporting obligations of the various groups involved in the transplantation process. The OPTN and, where appropriate, the scientific registry shall use a system for managing information on transplant candidates, recipients and donors.

The OPTN and, if applicable, the Scientific Registry must submit a report on the organ transplantation process to the HHS Secretary at least once a year. The OPTN must provide the scientific registry with information on transplant candidates and recipients. You must also inform the public about the implementation of transplant programs. OCOs and transplant programs must keep all records of each potential donor, organ removed and recipient, and forward this information to the OPTN, the Scientific Registry and the HHS Secretary as required. One could argue that the strength of such a policy is that it would respect the role of family members when they speak on behalf of those who can no longer speak for themselves. It would respect the needs of the family during the grieving process and recognize that the deceased cannot foresee the exact circumstances of their death in life and that there may be times when it is not better for those who need to remember them to do what the deceased claims to want. The purpose of this working paper is to inform Council members about the current organ transplantation policy and to give them a brief overview of possible options for policy reforms. It consists of four basic parts.

The first part highlights the most remarkable laws and regulations in the current system and explains how these laws and regulations are combined to form the existing U.S. organ transplant policy. Part II describes recent proposals by Congress and regulators to change the current system. Part III provides a brief overview of the organ transplantation policy that applies in other countries and examines in particular the Spanish version of presumed consent, Sweden`s application of compulsory voting, the Iranian organ market and the Chinese practice of convening organs. Part IV describes a number of potential policy reforms that the Council could consider for a recommendation, ranging from minor adjustments to the current system to more radical changes to its guiding principles and practical working methods. This section aims to categorize these different reforms and make a preliminary assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of each option. In the context of this report, the UAGA points out that a dose specified for transplantation cannot be used for research (although specified) unless it is impossible to use this organ for transplantation. This restriction raises the question whether the conduct of research on the donor or on the donor organ, whether a transplant follows, is compatible with or violates 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 does not come into force until the organ “cannot be used for a transplant”, but the intended endpoint of interventional research on organ donors is the act of transplanting the organ. Although research and transplantation are temporally sequential due to necessity, they are a common process. However, the organ ultimately could not be transplanted because (1) the research rendered the organ unusable; (2) the organ was unusable and was not repaired by the search; or (3) the organ is not transplanted due to other circumstances unrelated to the research. But in the case of interventionist donor research, the intention of the research is to improve transplant outcomes for current and future transplant recipients. This federal law would provide a unified baseline for the protection of living organ donors nationwide. The American Kidney Fund`s (AKF) 2021 State of the States: Living Donor Protection Report Card found that all 50 states and the District of Columbia currently offer a patchwork of protections to living organ donors, meaning that a person`s place of residence can affect their ability to be a living donor. The possible policy reforms discussed here are divided into eight thematic categories: (1) expansion of educational programmes; (2) the elimination of disincentives for living donation; (3) the use of expanded criteria for donors; (4) the promotion of organ exchanges; (5) the amendment of the donor consent acts; (6) the legal and clinical redefinition of death; (7) the creation of new rewards or incentives for donations; and (8) the promotion of medical alternatives to transplantation. Each policy reform is described according to its overall objectives and its impact on existing policies and regulations. It then briefly assesses the strengths and weaknesses of each proposed reform.

Procedures for obtaining authorization to donate organs, including the purposes for which the given organ may be used, should be standardized throughout the United States. Such consistency would make the process easier and more informative for the person considering a donation and make the process more useful for transplant professionals acting on the basis of this information. It is important to note that if the authorization processes for organ donors were more consistent and offered all possible options, the donor`s intent would be more transparent. Simplifying the process would mean that organizations acting as donor registries would use a simple term to provide information and obtain authorizations. Anyone considering making a donation will receive the same options and information for the donation, regardless of where they registered. Establishing the same format, level of detail, options and explanations would demonstrate the transparency of the process presented to those who decide whether or not to donate and to qualify their decision by allowing or refusing intervention research by organ donors prior to transplantation. Full disclosure and transparency is essential to create and ensure long-term public trust in organ donation and transplantation. The extension of the criteria would require specific changes to the rules on organ transplantation. UNOS would have to change its definition of authorized death, but since the current definition is not a federal ordinance or federal law, Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services would not have to change their policies. However, some updates to the informed consent guidelines may be needed to inform recipients of older, less healthy organs of the increased risks of receiving such organs.

In addition, it may be necessary to amend the allocation rules to take account of this new level of establishments. Recommendation 29: HHS should fund necessary research initiatives and convene a national consensus conference to update the criteria for end-of-life issues related to the determination of death related to organ donation and transplantation. The three specific areas that should be checked would be brain death, cardiac death, and imminent death. OBJECTIVE 1: Improve transparency and public confidence in the organ donation process for research followed by transplantation. Such a policy is rooted in the principle that, in some cases, the risks of an imperfect organ are preferable to expecting a better quality organ. Such a policy could make the transplant accessible to people who would otherwise likely never receive an organ. Since these organs would be less desirable than organs with standard criteria, those at the top of the waiting list might reject them, believing that a slightly longer wait will result in a more durable/powerful organ. .

Comments are closed.

We cannot display this gallery