A 49-year-old man lies in an intensive care unit bed, comatose. He sustained a severe traumatic brain injury and was unconscious at the scene where he was intubated before transport to the trauma center.Imaging confirms what his clinical exam portends: a devastating injury from which he is unlikely to recover. After 3 days, despite maximal medical therapy, he has recalcitrant intracranial hypertension. His family remains at his bedside, hoping. He develops progressive organ dysfunction, hypovolemia, and hypotension from diabetes insipidus.The critical care fellow suggests a fluid bolus and vasopressin infusion. The supervising physician declines to initiate more intensive measures, indicating that his injury is nonsurvivable and discussions about comfort care measures are planned for the morning. The fellow counters that without this support, organ failure may ensue and he could be ineligible to donate his organs. The attending rebukes, "That won't change the outcome, and you can't think about donation before he's even dead." By morning it is clear that herniation has occurred, and the patient is pronounced dead by neurological criteria. His wife points out that her husband often talked about wanting to donate his organs when he died-could he do that now? The organ procurement organization (OPO) is notified and reviews his case, but they determine that he is not suitable for donation; his organ dysfunction is too advanced.Unfortunately, this is a common scenario. Up to one quarter of potential organ donors are lost due to inattention to standard physiologic goals when death by neurologic criteria is imminent. 1 Conversely, a practice of aggressive management in such patients increases the number of organ donors as well as the number of organs recovered for transplantation. [2][3][4] In one study over an 8-year period, aggressive management resulted in an 82% increase in donors and an 87% decrease in donors lost to hemodynamic collapse. 3In the case presented here, under the premise of avoiding a conflict of interest attention was not given to the possibility that this person could be an organ donor. Or that he wanted to be a donor. After all, isn't organ donation something that happens after death? How can we try to save a person's life yet simultaneously plan for their death?Is planning for organ donation admitting defeat? Or worse, is it an abrogation of our duty to this patient's care?These questions are challenging, but become less so when viewed though a patient-centered perspective. According to the Institute of Medicine, patient-centered care is "providing care that is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values and ensuring that patient values guide all clinical decisions." 5 Organ donation, which hinges on a patient's own affirmation (or that of a surrogate on their behalf) to donate his or her own organs after death, is therefore integral to patient-centered care. Donation is