Ethical Issues in Resolving the Organ Shortage: The Views of Recent Immigrants and Healthcare Professionals
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Organ and tissue transplantation are increasingly presented as a solution for a number of serious and life-threatening health conditions. Advances in tissue typing, new generations of immunosuppressant drugs, and the refinement of surgical techniques have enhanced outcomes for transplant procedures, standardizing them as a form of therapy. These factors combined with the ever increasing human lifespan (particularly in developed countries) result in a larger number of people who would benefit by, and thus growing numbers in need of, an organ or tissue transplant. In addition, greater numbers of organs and tissues are needed for ongoing transplantation research. Yet there is a growing gap between the number of potential recipients and the number of donors in Canada and around the world. In Canada, between 1996 and 2005, the number of transplant operations (excluding kidneys from living donors) increased by only 126, while the number of people on the waiting list increased by over 1,500. Likewise, data provided by the Canadian Organ Replacement Register and the American United Network, for Organ Sharing show the number of transplant recipients in waiting increased from 49.5 per million people (pmp) in 1993 to 56.8 pmp in 2002, with the disparity between operations performed and the wait list widening by 8.3 percent. (1) Internationally, Canada's transplant rate (14 pmp) is on par with other western countries. But while Canada's rate remains above those of countries such as Australia (10 pmp) and New Zealand (11.2 pmp), it remains well below that of Spain (35-40 pmp), which has the most successful cadaveric transplant program in the world (2) and which many people view as the example to follow for other countries' donation programs. Policymakers are thus grappling with how best to narrow the donor-recipient gap and increase the availability of tissues and organs for research. In the past five years, several Private Member's Bills have been proposed to address the Canadian donor shortage. The adoption of these or similar bills will make significant changes to organ procurement and to ensuring informed consent. Beyond the myriad existing ethical issues surrounding organ donation, proposed changes will introduce further ethical challenges both for healthcare professionals in this specialty area and for potential donors. Beyond the introduction of laws directly aimed at increasing donation numbers, there is an ongoing international discussion among healthcare providers, policymakers, ethicists, and philosophers regarding other means to increase the availability of organs. At the core of the debate is the legality, ethics, and effectiveness of broadening the category of eligible donors. Procurement agencies formerly considered only persons suffering from brainstem who had indicated during their lifetime that they wished to donate. With the stagnating numbers of brain dead donors and the increased need for organs, new categories of persons under consideration as donors include: anencephalic newborns; non-beating-heart donors and persons revived after suffering cardiac death; executed prisoners (not applicable in Canada); (3) and persons with irreversible brain damage (4) or those persisting in prolonged vegetative states. (5) Among these categories, donation from persons who do not respond to resuscitation is considered to be one of the most effective and efficient methods for increasing donor numbers. (6) This mode of procurement has been called uncontrolled donation after a circulatory determination of or Rapid Organ Recovery (ROR). Attendant to the discussion of broadening categories of eligibility is the possibility of enlarging the donor pool by redefining death. For instance, it has been argued that while anencephalic infants have functioning brainstems, placing them in a special category of death could make them eligible as brain dead donors. (7) Likewise, the concept of imminent death considers persons eligible due to ROR, irreversible brain damage, or prolonged vegetative states. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».