Robert D Truog’s research while affiliated with National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health and other places

Bioethics conjures images of dramatic healthcare challenges, yet everyday clinical ethics issues unfold regularly. Without sufficient ethical awareness and a relevant working skillset, clinicians can feel ill-equipped to respond to the ethical dimensions of everyday care. Bioethicists were interviewed to identify the essential skills associated with everyday clinical ethics and to identify educational case scenarios to illustrate everyday clinical ethics. Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of bioethicists. Bioethicists were asked: (1) What are the essential skills required for everyday clinical ethics? And (2) What are potential educational case scenarios to illustrate and teach everyday clinical ethics? Participant interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Twenty-five (25) bioethicists completed interviews (64% female; mean 14.76 years bioethics experience; 80% white). Five categories of general skills and three categories of ethics-specific skills essential for everyday clinical ethics were identified. General skills included: (1) Awareness of Core Values and Self-Reflective Capacity; (2) Perspective-Taking and Empathic Presence; (3) Communication and Relational Skills; (4) Cultural Humility and Respect; and (5) Organizational Understanding and Know-How. Ethics-specific skills included: (1) Ethical Awareness; (2) Ethical Knowledge and Literacy; and (3) Ethical Analysis and Interaction. Collectively, these skills comprise a Toolbox of Everyday Clinical Ethics Skills. Educational case scenarios were identified to promote everyday ethics. Bioethicists identified skills essential to everyday clinical ethics. Educational case scenarios were identified for the purpose of promoting proficiency in this domain. Future research could explore the impact of integrating educational case scenarios on clinicians’ ethical competencies.

Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) is a relatively new approach to procuring organs for transplantation. After circulatory death is declared, perfusion is restored to either the thoracoabdominal organs (in TA‐NRP) or abdominal organs alone (in A‐NRP) using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Simultaneously, surgeons clamp the cerebral arteries, causing a fatal brain injury. Critics claim that clamping the arteries is the proximate cause of death in violation of the dead donor rule and that the procedure is therefore unethical. We disagree. This account does not consider the myriad other factors that contribute to the death of the donor, including the presence of a fatal medical condition, the decision to withdraw life support, and the physician's actions in withdrawing life support and administering medication that may hasten death. Instead, we claim that physicians play a causative role in many of the events that lead to a patient's death and that these actions are often ethically and legally justified. We advance an “all things considered” view according to which TA‐NRP may be considered ethically acceptable insofar as it avoids suffering and respects the wishes of the patient to improve the lives of others through organ donation. We conclude with a series of critical questions related to the practice of NRP and call for the development of national consensus on this issue in the United States .

Importance Acetaminophen (paracetamol) has many pharmacological effects that might be beneficial in sepsis, including inhibition of cell-free hemoglobin-induced oxidation of lipids and other substrates. Objective To determine whether acetaminophen increases days alive and free of organ dysfunction in sepsis compared with placebo. Design, Setting, and Participants Phase 2b randomized, double-blind, clinical trial conducted from October 2021 to April 2023 with 90-day follow-up. Adults with sepsis and respiratory or circulatory organ dysfunction were enrolled in the emergency department or intensive care unit of 40 US academic hospitals within 36 hours of presentation. Intervention Patients were randomized to 1 g of acetaminophen intravenously every 6 hours or placebo for 5 days. Main Outcome and Measures The primary end point was days alive and free of organ support (mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and kidney replacement therapy) to day 28. Treatment effect modification was evaluated for acetaminophen by prerandomization plasma cell-free hemoglobin level higher than 10 mg/dL. Results Of 447 patients enrolled (mean age, 64 [SD, 15] years, 51% female, mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score, 5.4 [SD, 2.5]), 227 were randomized to acetaminophen and 220 to placebo. Acetaminophen was safe with no difference in liver enzymes, hypotension, or fluid balance between treatment arms. Days alive and free of organ support to day 28 were not meaningfully different for acetaminophen (20.2 days; 95% CI, 18.8 to 21.6) vs placebo (19.6 days; 95% CI, 18.2 to 21.0; P = .56; difference, 0.6; 95% CI, −1.4 to 2.6). Among 15 secondary outcomes, total, respiratory, and coagulation SOFA scores were significantly lower on days 2 through 4 in the acetaminophen arm as was the rate of development of acute respiratory distress syndrome within 7 days (2.2% vs 8.5% acetaminophen vs placebo; P = .01; difference, −6.3; 95% CI, −10.8 to −1.8). There was no significant interaction between cell-free hemoglobin levels and acetaminophen. Conclusions and Relevance Intravenous acetaminophen was safe but did not significantly improve days alive and free of organ support in critically ill sepsis patients. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04291508

In controlled organ donation after circulatory determination of death (cDCDD), accurate and timely death determination is critical, yet knowledge gaps persist. Further research to improve the science of defining and determining death by circulatory criteria is therefore warranted. In a workshop sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, experts identified research opportunities pertaining to scientific, conceptual, and ethical understandings of DCDD and associated technologies. This article identifies a research strategy to inform the biomedical definition of death, the criteria for its determination, and circulatory death determination in cDCDD. Highlighting knowledge gaps, we propose that further research is needed to inform the observation period following cessation of circulation in pediatric and neonatal populations, the temporal relationship between the cessation of brain and circulatory function after the withdrawal of life-sustaining measures in all patient populations, and the minimal pulse pressures that sustain brain blood flow, perfusion, activity, and function. Additionally, accurate predictive tools to estimate time to asystole following the withdrawal of treatment and alternative monitoring modalities to establish the cessation of circulatory, brainstem, and brain function are needed. The physiologic and conceptual implications of postmortem interventions that resume circulation in cDCDD donors likewise demand attention to inform organ recovery practices. Finally, because jurisdictionally variable definitions of death and the criteria for its determination may impede collaborative research efforts, further work is required to achieve consensus on the physiologic and conceptual rationale for defining and determining death after circulatory arrest.

Research involving recently deceased humans that are physiologically maintained following declaration of death by neurologic criteria—or ‘research involving the recently deceased’—can fill a translational research gap while reducing harm to animals and living human subjects. It also creates new challenges for honouring the donor’s legacy, respecting the rights of donor loved ones, resource allocation and public health. As this research model gains traction, new empirical ethics questions must be answered to preserve public trust in all forms of tissue donation and in the practice of medicine while respecting the legacy of the deceased and the rights of donor loved ones. This article suggests several topics for immediate investigation to understand the attitudes and experiences of researchers, clinical collaborators, donor loved ones and the public to ensure research involving the recently deceased advances ethically.

This Viewpoint summarizes the major issues that led to the decision to draft a revision of the Uniform Determination of Death Act, the alternatives that were considered, why there was failure to reach consensus, and what this means for the future.