Introduction and MethodsThis report summarizes the results of the first phase in the development of international guidelines for death determination, focusing on the biology of death and the dying process, developed by an invitational forum of international content experts and representatives of a number of professional societies.Results and ConclusionsPrecise terminology was developed in order to improve clarity in death discussion and debate. Critical events in the physiological sequences leading to cessation of neurological and/or circulatory function were constructed. It was agreed that death determination is primarily clinical and recommendations for preconditions, confounding factors, minimum clinical standards and additional testing were made. A single operational definition of human death was developed: ‘the permanent loss of capacity for consciousness and all brainstem functions, as a consequence of permanent cessation of circulation or catastrophic brain injury’. In order to complete the project, in the next phase, a broader group of international stakeholders will develop clinical practice guidelines, based on comprehensive reviews and grading of the existing evidence.

The use of unmodified extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the circulatory determination of death donor after death is declared should be abandoned because, by restoring brain circulation, it retroactively negates the previous death determination. Modifications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation that avoid this problem by excluding brain circulation are contrived, invasive, and, if used, should require consent of surrogates. Heart donation in circulatory determination of death is acceptable if proper standards are followed to declare donor death after establishing the permanent cessation of circulation. Pending additional data on "auto-resuscitation," we recommend that all circulatory determination of death programs should utilize the prevailing standard of 2 to 5 mins of demonstrated mechanical asystole before declaring death.

Background The U.S. Office for Human Research Protections has proposed that end points of randomized trials comparing the effectiveness of standard medical practices are risks of research that would require disclosure and written informed consent, but data are lacking on the views of potential participants. Objective To assess attitudes of U.S. adults about risks and preferences for notification and consent for research on medical practices. Design Cross-sectional survey conducted in August 2014. Setting Web-based questionnaire. Patients 1095 U.S. adults sampled from an online panel (n = 805) and an online convenience river sample (n = 290). Measurements Attitudes toward risk, informed consent, and willingness to participate in 3 research scenarios involving medical record review and randomization of usual medical practices. Results 97% of respondents agreed that health systems should evaluate standard treatments. Most wanted to be asked for permission to participate in each of 3 scenarios (range, 75.2% to 80.4%), even if it involved only medical record review, but most would accept nonwritten (oral) permission or general notification if obtaining written permission would make the research too difficult to conduct (range, 70.2% to 82.7%). Most perceived additional risk from each scenario (range, 64.0% to 81.6%). Limitation Use of hypothetical scenarios and a nonprobability sample that was not fully representative of the U.S. population. Conclusion Most respondents preferred to be asked for permission to participate in observational and randomized research evaluating usual medical practices, but they are willing to accept less elaborate approaches than written consent if research would otherwise be impracticable. These attitudes are not aligned with proposed regulatory guidance. Primary Funding Source National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health.

A decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment (WLST) is derived by a conclusion that further treatment will not enable a patient to survive or will not produce a functional outcome with acceptable quality of life that the patient and the treating team regard as beneficial. Although many hospitalized patients die under such circumstances, controlled donation after the circulatory determination of death (cDCDD) programs have been developed only in a reduced number of countries. This International Collaborative Statement aims at expanding cDCDD in the world to help countries progress towards self-sufficiency in transplantation and offer more patients the opportunity of organ donation. The Statement addresses three fundamental aspects of the cDCDD pathway. First, it describes the process of determining a prognosis that justifies the WLST, a decision that should be prior to and independent of any consideration of organ donation and in which transplant professionals must not participate. Second, the Statement establishes the permanent cessation of circulation to the brain as the standard to determine death by circulatory criteria. Death may be declared after an elapsed observation period of 5 min without circulation to the brain, which confirms that the absence of circulation to the brain is permanent. Finally, the Statement highlights the value of perfusion repair for increasing the success of cDCDD organ transplantation. cDCDD protocols may utilize either in situ or ex situ perfusion consistent with the practice of each country. Methods to accomplish the in situ normothermic reperfusion of organs must preclude the restoration of brain perfusion to not invalidate the determination of death.

The supply of organs—particularly kidneys—donated by living and deceased donors falls short of the number of patients added annually to transplant waiting lists in the United States. To remedy this problem, a number of prominent physicians, ethicists, economists and others have mounted a campaign to suspend the prohibitions in the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (NOTA) on the buying and selling of organs. The argument that providing financial benefits would incentivize enough people to part with a kidney (or a portion of a liver) to clear the waiting lists is flawed. This commentary marshals arguments against the claim that the shortage of donor organs would best be overcome by providing financial incentives for donation. We can increase the number of organs available for transplantation by removing all financial disincentives that deter unpaid living or deceased kidney donation. These disincentives include a range of burdens, such as the costs of travel and lodging for medical evaluation and surgery, lost wages, and the expense of dependent care during the period of organ removal and recuperation. Organ donation should remain an act that is financially neutral for donors, neither imposing financial burdens nor enriching them monetarily.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Human subjects protection in healthcare contexts rests on the premise that a principled boundary distinguishes clinical research and clinical practice. However, growing use of evidence-based clinical practices by health systems makes it increasingly difficult to disentangle research from a wide range of clinical activities that are sometimes called “research on medical practice” (ROMP), including quality improvement activities and comparative effectiveness research. The recent growth of ROMP activities has created an ethical and regulatory gray zone with significant implications for the oversight of human subjects research. Methods We conducted six semi-structured, open-ended focus group discussions with IRB members to understand their experiences and perspectives on ethical oversight of ROMP, including randomization of patients to standard treatments. Results Our study revealed that IRB members are unclear or divided on the central questions at stake in the current policy debate over ethical oversight of ROMP: IRB members struggle to make a clear distinction between clinical research and medical practice improvement, lack consensus on when ROMP requires IRB review and oversight, and are uncertain about what constitutes incremental risk when patients are randomized to different treatments, any of which may be offered in usual care. They characterized the central challenge as a balancing act, between, on the one hand, making information fully transparent to patients and providing adequate oversight, and on the other hand, avoiding a chilling effect on the research process or harming the physician-patient relationship. Conclusions Evidence-based guidance that supports IRB members in providing adequate and effective oversight of ROMP without impeding the research process or harming the physician-patient relationship is necessary to realize the full benefits of the learning health system.