To the Editor: In their recent article,1 Richards and Rogers connect some ideas about patient autonomy, non-maleficence and laws relating to consent with specific antemortem activities, but their main “justification” for these activities is a practice termed donation after cardiac death (DCD). This practice has been introduced in the hope of increasing the availability of organs for transplant. It involves removing cardiorespiratory support and withholding resuscitation, then harvesting organs when cardiac death occurs.2,3
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- School of History and Philosophy, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW.
- 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. 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 Dec 2007).
- 3. New South Wales Health. Organ donation after cardiac death: NSW guidelines. Sydney: NSW Health, 2007: 5, 6, 18. http://www.health.nsw.gov. au/policies/gl/2007/GL2007_012.html (accessed Dec 2007).
- 4. Northridge v Central Sydney Area Health Service [2000] NSWSC 1241.