Faculty Bibliography

This paper responds to the position statement released by the American College of Physicians (ACP) entitled "Ethics, Determination of Death, and Organ Transplantation in Normothermic Regional Perfusion (NRP) with Controlled Donation after Circulatory Determination of Death (cDCD): American College of Physicians Statement of Concern." The ACP's statement engages with critical ethical issues surrounding cDCD NRP, but several of their conclusions are flawed. Contrary to the statement, the practice respects the dead donor rule and the legal definition of death while honoring the wishes of the deceased and their loved ones to help save the lives of those in need of organ transplants. cDCD NRP is well established in many countries, it can enhance trust in medical practice and organ donation, and will increase the availability of optimal organs for life-saving transplants.

Innovative research in deceased donation and transplantation often presents ethical challenges for researchers and those responsible for ethical governance of research. These challenges have been recognized as potential barriers to the conduct of research. We review the literature to identify and describe ethical considerations that may cause confusion or uncertainty in the context of research involving potential deceased donors or deceased donor transplantation. We normatively examine these considerations and discuss their implications for the ethical conduct of research. In addition to the complexities of research involving critically ill, dying or recently deceased individuals, uncertainty may arise regarding the ethical status of various individuals who may be involved in research aimed at improving availability and outcomes of organ transplantation. Consequently, routine ethical guidelines for clinical research may fail to provide clear guidance with regards to the design, conduct and governance of some deceased donation or transplantation studies. Ethical uncertainty may result in delays or barriers to research, or neglect of important ethical considerations. Specific ethical guidance is needed to support research in deceased donation and transplantation as the ethical considerations that arise in the design and conduct of such research may not be addressed in the existing guidelines for human research.

Solid organ transplant (SOT) candidates and recipients were not included in the COVID-19 vaccine trials that have justified vaccine administration to millions worldwide and will be critical to ending the pandemic. The risks of COVID-19 for SOT candidates and recipients combined with data about this population's response to other vaccines has led to transplant centers recommending vaccination for their candidates and recipients in accordance with guidance from major transplant organizations. Relevant ethics considerations include: weighing the low risk of vaccination causing transplant complications against potentially limited antibody response of vaccines for transplant recipients; the equitable distribution of vaccines among vulnerable populations; the duty to steward and respect organs as limited resources; the duty to support vaccination; and patient autonomy. Vaccinated transplant patients and candidates should also consider participating in research studies to better understand the efficacy and potential long-term risks in this patient population. There are difficult scenarios, like timing transplant after second vaccine dose, when to administer the second dose to a partially vaccinated candidate who gets an organ match, whether to vaccinate a recent transplant recipient with low exposure risk and which vaccine to use. Here we provide ethics considerations for vaccinating different groups within the transplant population.

As the USA contends with another surge in COVID-19 cases, hospitals may soon need to answer the unresolved question of who lives and dies when ventilator demand exceeds supply. Although most triage policies in the USA have seemingly converged on the use of clinical need and benefit as primary criteria for prioritisation, significant differences exist between institutions in how to assign priority to patients with identical medical prognoses: the so-called 'tie-breaker' situations. In particular, one's status as a frontline healthcare worker (HCW) has been a proposed criterion for prioritisation in the event of a tie. This article outlines two major grounds for reconsidering HCW prioritisation. The first recognises trust as an indispensable element of clinical care and mistrust as a hindrance to any public health strategy against the virus, thus raising concerns about the outward appearance of favouritism. The second considers the ways in which proponents of HCW prioritisation deviate from the very 'ethics frameworks' that often preface triage policies and serve to guide resource allocation-a rhetorical strategy that may undermine the very ethical foundations on which triage policies stand. By appealing to trust and consistency, we re-examine existing arguments in favour of HCW prioritisation and provide a more tenable justification for adjudicating on tie-breaker events during crisis standards of care.

Death's legal definition must be responsive to advances in technology, and it must delineate between life and death. But where to draw the line is difficult to determine. Death's current legal definition requires irreversible cessation of cardiorespiratory function or irreversible cessation of all brain function. But technology can often restore some brain functions without restoring consciousness, so brain death is often diagnosed without the irreversibility requirement being met. This article argues that the law should be updated to require permanent cessation, not irreversible cessation and that medicine should be transparent about what permanent means.

Genetic testing is becoming more widespread, and its capabilities and predictive power are growing. In this paper, we evaluate the ethical justifications for and strength of the US legal framework that aims to protect patients, research participants, and consumers from genetic discrimination in employment and health insurance settings in the context of advancing genetic technology. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and other laws prohibit genetic and other health-related discrimination in the United States, but these laws have significant limitations, and some provisions are under threat. If accuracy and predictive power increase, specific instances of use of genetic information by employers may indeed become ethically justifiable; however, any changes to laws would need to be adopted cautiously, if at all, given that people have consented to genetic testing with the expectation that there would be no genetic discrimination in employment or health insurance settings. However, if our society values access to healthcare for both the healthy and the sick, we should uphold strict and broad prohibitions against genetic and health-related discrimination in the context of health insurance, including employer-based health insurance. This is an extremely important but often overlooked consideration in the current US debate on healthcare.