Faculty Bibliography

The Institute of Medicine's recent report, Organ Donation: Opportunities for Action, studies the current problems facing organ donation in the USA, making suggestions for quality improvement and analyzing various proposals of incentivized donation and presumed consent (PC). Although the report deals with the donation of several solid organs, this mini review examines the findings from the perspective of kidney transplantation. The committee's recommendations to move from circulatory to neurologic criteria for cadaveric donation and to increase opportunities for donor decision making are prudent. We agree with the committee's arguments against providing incentives for donation because of the inherent distributional inequalities and imperfect information; the intrinsic difficulties in establishing market equilibrium for such heterogeneous and perishable goods; the implied commoditization of the human body; and the inadequate data regarding the long-term risks of living donation. However, we question the committee's firm opposition to PC, especially given recent data from 22 European countries showing a 25-30% increase in organ supply attributable to a PC policy. If this simple change in the default position on donation has the potential to increase organ supply, decrease the need for living donation, reduce the burden on grieving families, maintain familial authority over the deceased, and respect patient autonomy, at least a pilot program of PC seems warranted.

While revisionist historians have challenged many standard interpretations of events in the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, one account has remained virtually unscathed: an article about Roosevelt's terminal illness and death written by one of his physicians, Howard G. Bruenn. Yet this article, like all historical documents, was not "objective" but rather a reflection of social and political forces--both from the 1940s, when Roosevelt became ill, and from 1970, when Bruenn's piece was published. This essay argues that Bruenn, the Roosevelt family, and the historian James MacGregor Burns worked together to craft a document that told the story of Roosevelt's decline with a predictable trajectory.

In 1984 the noted breast cancer activist Rose Kushner published a controversial article, "Is Aggressive Adjuvant Chemotherapy the Halsted Radical of the '80s?" In it, she argued that chemotherapy was being used as indiscriminately as the radical mastectomy had been, before she and others had successfully discredited the disfiguring operation. As with all of Kushner's writings, this article raised valid points in an informed and provocative style, but her attack on chemotherapy was more one-sided than was typical. This may have been due to the highly personal nature of the topic: when she was diagnosed with recurrent breast cancer, she had declined chemotherapy in favor of a hormonal agent, tamoxifen. She also developed a close working and financial relationship with the manufacturers of tamoxifen. Although not seen as a problem at the time, Kushner's dual roles as patient and advocate for a particular treatment foreshadowed conflict-of-interest issues that would take center stage in medicine in subsequent decades.