Faculty Bibliography

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.

Controlled heart donation after circulatory determination of death (cDCD) is well-established internationally with good outcomes and could be adopted in the United States to increase heart supply if ethical and logistical challenges are comprehensively addressed. The most effective and resource-efficient method for mitigating warm ischemia after circulatory arrest is normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) in situ. This strategy requires restarting circulation after declaration of death according to circulatory criteria, which appears to challenge the legal circulatory death definition requiring irreversible cessation. Permanent cessation for life-saving efforts must be achieved to assuage this concern and ligating principal vessels maintains no blood flow to the brain, which ensures natural progression to cessation of brain function. This practice - standard in some countries - raises unique concerns about prioritizing life-saving efforts, informed authorization from decision-makers, and the clinician's role in the patient's death. To preserve public trust, medical integrity, and respect for the donor, the donation conversation must not take place until after an un-coerced decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment made in accordance with the patient's treatment goals. The decision maker(s) must understand cDCD procedure well enough to provide genuine authorization and the preservation/procurement teams must be kept separate from the clinical care team.

Over 115 000 people are waiting for life-saving organ transplants, of whom a small fraction will receive transplants and many others will die while waiting. Existing efforts to expand the number of available organs, including increasing the number of registered donors and procuring organs in uncontrolled environments, are crucial but unlikely to address the shortage in the near future and will not improve donor/recipient compatibility or organ quality. If successful, organ bioengineering can solve the shortage and improve functional outcomes. Studying manufactured organs in animal models has produced valuable data, but is not sufficient to understand viability in humans. Before risking manufactured organ experimentation in living humans, study of bioengineered organs in recently deceased humans would facilitate evaluation of the function of engineered tissues and the complex interactions between the host and the transplanted tissue. Although such studies do not pose risk to human subjects, they pose unique ethical challenges concerning the previous wishes of the deceased, rights of surviving family members, effective operation and fair distribution of medical services, and public transparency. This article investigates the ethical, legal and social considerations in performing engineered organ research on the recently deceased.