Ethical Issues in Resolving the Organ Shortage: The Views of Recent Immigrants and Healthcare Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.047 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".