No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Transplant Ethics: Let’s Begin the Conversation Anew: A Critical Look at One Institute’s Experience with Transplant Related Ethical Issues
Abstract
Standardizing consultation processes is increasingly important as clinical ethics consultation (CEC) becomes more utilized in and vital to medical practice. Solid organ transplant represents a relatively nascent field replete with complex ethical issues that, while explored, have not been systematically classified. In this paper, we offer a proposed taxonomy that divides issues of resource allocation from viable solutions to the issue of organ shortage in transplant and then further distinguishes between policy and bedside level issues. We then identify all transplant related ethics consults performed at the Cleveland Clinic (CC) between 2008 and 2013 in order to identify how consultants conceptually framed their consultations by the domains they ascribe to the case. We code the CC domains to those in the Core Competencies for Healthcare Consultation Ethics in order to initiate a broader conversation regarding best practices in these highly complex cases. A discussion of the ethical issues underlying living donor and recipient related consults ensues. Finally, we suggest that the ethical domains prescribed in the Core Competencies provide a strong starting ground for a common intra-disciplinary language in the realm of formal CEC.
... These and related questions should guide the assessment process during direct patient interview (rather than curbside consults). Similar to their role on solid organ transplant teams (40,41), clinical ethicists commonly assist VCA teams with various aspects of the VCA program, including the assessment of recipient candidates. The ethicist does not work in isolation of the team psychologist, psychiatrist or social worker; however, the ethics assessment is additional to the psychosocial assessment performed by social workers. ...
Introduction:
Most solid organ transplantation is viewed as lifesaving, whereas vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) has been viewed as life enhancing. This article challenges the latter and argues that "social death" evident in severe face, hand, and larynx disfigurement can be potentially treated via VCA. Social death (from a social science perspective) consists of a combination of 7 components: social isolation, loneliness, ostracism, loss of personhood, change of role and identity, harm, and disfigurement.
Methods:
In February 2016, PubMed and Google were searched for case reports of human face, hand, and larynx transplantation. Patient and team narratives were then coded for components of social death using social science and medical model criteria.
Results:
Eleven narratives were identified among 9 articles. The social science model (but not the medical model) described pretransplant social death and the resolution of social death by receiving VCA. Notably, the medical model of social death was deemed unsuitable for application to VCA. This is because case narratives consistently contradict elements of the medical model.
Conclusions:
By including social death as a patient inclusion criterion for face, hand, and larynx VCA, these transplants can be considered lifesaving. Additionally, because VCA requires lifelong immunosuppressant medication, considering VCA as a lifesaving intervention improves the technology's risk-benefit analysis. Guidance for assessing social death is provided.
A former Prime Minister of Israel is alleged to have said that her country would never ascend to the status of authentic statehood until it possessed certain well-known social attributes — organized crime, prostitution, and corruption. These features, while obviously undesirable, were she felt, reliable indices of societal maturation. This anecdote is suggestive in understanding current events pertaining to the field of applied ethics.
Philosophers have produced a massive body of opinion and argument on a diverse range of subjects under the rubric of applied (or practical) ethics. Moreover, they have assumed positions on various panels, commissions, governmental bodies and committees in the hope of making an informed contribution to the formulation of institutional and public policy. These accomplishments have begun to elicit the kinds of attributes commonly associated with philosophical maturation — exposées, debunkings, refutations, and ideologically informed critiques.
The independent living donor advocate (ILDA) serves a mandated and supportive role in the care of the living organ donor, yet qualifications and role requirements are not clearly defined. Guidance comes from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Conditions for Transplant Center Participation and interpretive guidelines, Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) Policy and CMS and OPTN site surveys, yet interpretation of regulations varies. Herein, the AST Living Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP) offers seven recommendations to clarify and optimize the ILDA role: (a) the ILDA must have a certain skill set rather than a specific profession, (b) the ILDA must be educated and demonstrate competence in core knowledge components, (c) the ILDA's primary role is to assess components of informed consent, (d) centers must develop a transparent system to define ILDA independence, (e) the ILDA should have a reporting structure outside the transplant center, (f) the ILDA's role should be integrated throughout the donor care continuum, (g) the ILDA role should include a narrow "veto power." We address controversies in ILDA implementation, and offer pathways to maximize benefits and minimize limitations of approaches that may each meet regulatory requirements but confer different practice benefits. We propose a research agenda to explore the impact of the ILDA.
© Copyright 2015 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.
The new phenomenon of clinical ethics is analyzed from a role theoretic perspective that differentiates consulting, teaching, watching, and witnessing. Teaching and consulting are seen as main role alternatives in clinical ethics practice, with watching and witnessing defining transitional states that reveal the complexity of clinical ethics. The problem of the legitimation of clinical ethics is discussed in terms of legal, professional, and social accountability and authorization. It is argued that the problem of legitimation is tied up with the related issue of expertise that, in turn, reflects the complex role alternatives of consulting, teaching, watching, and witnessing. Finally, the question of methodology and practice of clinical is explored in connection with the four role alternatives delineated.
While consensus exists among many practitioners of ethics consultation about the need for and identification of core competencies and standards, there has been virtually no attempt to determine how these competencies and standards are best taught and assessed. We believe that clinical ethics consultation has reached a state of sufficient maturity that expert practitioners can evaluate those who are new to the field. We will outline several steps that can facilitate the creation of a certification process for clinical ethics consultants, assuring the competency and quality of consultation for the patients, families, and healthcare professionals who utilize ECSs.
Core competencies for healthcare ethics consultation
- Core Competency Task Force
Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Policies Living Donation, Section 14.2
- Sharing