|
|
 |
The Waiting Game
Organ Transplant Controversy January 2, 1998 |
|---|
Questions answered
in this forum:
Is one way to avoid the ethical mess is to have a "National" society of organ donations? What is the difference between heart and brain death? Is it necessary to use Regitine to preserve organs, and what are its dangers? What is the research/clinical status of alternatives such as artificial organs, animal organs, etc.? Is there something wrong with this constant prolonging of life?
NewsHour Coverage
December 12, 1996
Federal health officials are considering a new policy that would change how liver transplant recipients are selected.
Browse the NewsHour's coverage of health.
OUTSIDE LINKS
United Network for Organ Sharing
Transplant Recipients International Organization, Inc., featuring the National Organ Waiting List
Washington Hospital Center
There are many positive aspects to organ donation. But critics argue that the methods used to procure organs may be crossing the line of what's ethical. Controversial laws and dangerous chemicals are at the center of the debate.
Washington, D.C. is the only place in the country that allows doctors to preserve patients organs for transplant without family consent. But even before a family's consent in many states, doctors routinely flush kidneys and other organs with chemical preservatives to keep them viable long enough to get permission for transplantation. This involves an obtrusive surgical procedure and some families are outraged, calling the aggressive strategy mutilation of the dead.
Critics say that the Washington D.C. law violates fundamental patients' rights, but supporters say that it is necessary to increase the number of organs desperately needed to reach the demands of rapidly growing waiting lists. The Washington Hospital Center says the procedure is designed to preserve the opportunity for the family to make a donation decision.
Adding fuel to the fire is a chemical known as regitine. Regitine widens blood vessels so that organs are well supplied with blood, and is injected into a potential donor while he or she is still alive. The drug is controversial because it causes a temporary loss of blood pressure. Michael DeVita, director of the University of Pittsburgh medical Center's surgical intensive care unit says "Regitine reliably drops blood pressure. We believe it does hasten death..." Other medical experts claim that regitine causes at the most a temporary and harmless drop in blood pressure.
Another controversy surrounds the definition of death. Most organs are donated by patients who are brain dead. But there are those who say it should be permissible to use the organs of patients whose hearts have stopped beating for as little as two minutes.
Renee Fox, a medical sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania says that "this field has reached a stage in which the ardor about the goodness of organ transplantation and the zeal in pursuing that goal is causing some very disturbing things to happen."
Joining us to debate this topic are Renee Fox, who has written extensively about transplantation. Dr. Michael DeVita of the University of Pittsburgh and Dr. William Ritchie of the Washington Hospital Center.
Some things to consider: Is it right to take organs from brain dead patients? How does "brain death" differ from "heart death"? Is it necessary to use Regitine to preserve organs?
Is one way to avoid the ethical mess is to have a "National" society of organ donations? What is the difference between heart and brain death? Is it necessary to use Regitine to preserve organs, and what are its dangers? What is the research/clinical status of alternatives such as artificial organs, animal organs, etc.? Is there something wrong with this constant prolonging of life?
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. PBS Online Privacy Policy
Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
