Organ donation following medical assistance in dying, Part I: a scoping review of legal and ethical aspects
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to collate and summarize the current literature on what is known about organ donation following medical assistance in dying (MAiD). Additionally, for this first part of a 2-part scoping review, the focus is on legal and ethical considerations regarding organ donation following MAiD. INTRODUCTION: Organ donation following MAiD is a relatively new procedure that has sparked much debate and discussion. A comprehensive investigation into the legal and ethical aspects related to organ donation following MAiD is needed to inform the development of safe and ethical practices. INCLUSION CRITERIA: In this review, we included documents that investigated legal and/or ethical issues related to individuals who underwent organ donation following MAiD in any setting (eg, hospital or home) worldwide. We considered quantitative and qualitative studies, text and opinion papers, gray literature, and unpublished material provided by stakeholders. METHODS: This scoping review followed JBI methodology. Published studies were retrieved from databases, including MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, and Academic Search Complete (EBSCOhost). Gray and unpublished literature included reports from organ donation organizations in Canada, The Netherlands, and Belgium. Two independent reviewers screened all reports (both by title and abstract and by full text) against the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and completed a content analysis. Disagreements between the 2 reviewers were resolved through discussions among the reviewers and the lead reviewer. RESULTS: We included 121 documents for parts I and II of our scoping review, 89 of which are included in part I. The majority of the 89 documents were discussion papers published in English and in Canada from 2019 to 2021. In the content analysis, we identified 4 major categories regarding ethical and legal aspects of organ donation following MAiD: i) legal definitions, legislation, and guidelines; ii) ethics, dilemmas, and consensus; iii) consent and objection; and iv) public perceptions. We identified the main legislation regulating the practices of organ donation following MAiD in countries where both procedures are permitted, the many ethical debates surrounding this topic (eg, eligibility criteria for organ donation and MAiD, disclosure of donors' and recipients' information, directed organ donation, death determination in organ donation following MAiD, ethical safeguards for organ donation following MAiD), as well as the public perceptions of this process. CONCLUSIONS: Organ donation following MAiD has raised many legal and ethical concerns regarding establishing safeguards to protect patients and families. Despite the ongoing debates around the risks and benefits of this combined procedure, when patients who request MAiD want to donate their organs, this option can help fulfill their last wishes and diminish their suffering, which should be the main reasons to offer organ donation following MAiD.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,039 | 0,152 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,021 | 0,022 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».