Eligibility for organ donation: a medico-legal perspective on defining and determining death L'admissibiliteau don d'organe: definir et determiner le deces - une perspective medico-legale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose In the context of post-mortem organ donation, there is an obvious need for certainty regarding the legal definition and determination of death, as individuals must be legally pronounced dead before organs may be procured for donation. Surprisingly then, the legal situation in Canada with regard to the definition and determination of death is uncertain. The purpose of this review is to provide anesthesiologists and critical care specialists with a medico-legal perspective regarding the definition and determination of death (particularly as it relates to nonheart-beating donor protocols) and to contribute to ongoing improvement in policies, protocols, and practices in this area. Principal findings The status quo with regard to the current legal definition of death is presented as well as the criteria for determining if and when death has occurred. A number of important problems with the status quo are described, followed by a series of recommendations to address these problems. Conclusions The legal deficiencies regarding the definition and determination of death in Canada may place health care providers at risk of civil or criminal liability, discourage potential organ donation, and frustrate the wishes of some individuals to donate their organs. The definition and criteria for the determination of death should be clearly set out in legislation. In addition, the current use of non-heart-beating donor protocols in Canada will remain inconsistent with Canadian law until more persuasive evidence on the potential return of cardiac function after cardiac arrest is gathered and made publicly available or until a concrete proposal to abandon the dead donor rule and amend Canadian law is adopted following a process of public debate and intense multidisciplinary review.
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 | 0.031 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".