Organ donation after cardiac death: legal and ethical justifications for antemortem interventions

Tibballs, James

doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01572.x

Topics

To the Editor: Richards and Rogers1 claim that antemortem interventions on an organ donor to improve organ viability for donation after cardiac death (DCD), such as administration of heparin and femoral vessel cannulation, are ethically and legally justified. Their reasoning is flawed.

Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, VIC.

Correspondence: james.tibballs@rch.org.au

1. Richards B, Rogers WA. Organ donation after cardiac death: legal and ethical justifications for antemortem interventions. Med J Aust 2007; 187: 168-170. <MJA full text>
2. Bernat JL, D’Alessandro AM, Port FK, et al. Report of a National Conference on Donation after Cardiac Death. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 281-291.
3. Mant MJ, O’Brien BD, Thong KL, et al. Haemorrhagic complications of heparin therapy. Lancet 1977; 1: 1133-1135.
4. National Health and Medical Research Council. Organ and tissue donation after death, for transplantation. Guidelines for ethical practice for health professionals. Canberra: Australian Government, 2007. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/_files/e75.pdf (accessed Aug 2007).
5. New South Wales Health. Organ donation after cardiac death: NSW guidelines. Sydney: NSW Health, 2007: 6. http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/policies/gl/2007/GL2007_012.html (accessed Aug 2007).
6. Tibballs J. Clinical practice guidelines in the witness box: can they replace the medical expert? J Law Med 2007; 14: 479-500.
7. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 2 WLR 316, 372.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.