↓ Skip to main content

Donation after cardiocirculatory death: a call for a moratorium pending full public disclosure and fully informed consent

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Donation after cardiocirculatory death: a call for a moratorium pending full public disclosure and fully informed consent
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, December 2011
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-6-17
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ari R Joffe, Joe Carcillo, Natalie Anton, Allan deCaen, Yong Y Han, Michael J Bell, Frank A Maffei, John Sullivan, James Thomas, Gonzalo Garcia-Guerra

Abstract

Many believe that the ethical problems of donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) have been "worked out" and that it is unclear why DCD should be resisted. In this paper we will argue that DCD donors may not yet be dead, and therefore that organ donation during DCD may violate the dead donor rule. We first present a description of the process of DCD and the standard ethical rationale for the practice. We then present our concerns with DCD, including the following: irreversibility of absent circulation has not occurred and the many attempts to claim it has have all failed; conflicts of interest at all steps in the DCD process, including the decision to withdraw life support before DCD, are simply unavoidable; potentially harmful premortem interventions to preserve organ utility are not justifiable, even with the help of the principle of double effect; claims that DCD conforms with the intent of the law and current accepted medical standards are misleading and inaccurate; and consensus statements by respected medical groups do not change these arguments due to their low quality including being plagued by conflict of interest. Moreover, some arguments in favor of DCD, while likely true, are "straw-man arguments," such as the great benefit of organ donation. The truth is that honesty and trustworthiness require that we face these problems instead of avoiding them. We believe that DCD is not ethically allowable because it abandons the dead donor rule, has unavoidable conflicts of interests, and implements premortem interventions which can hasten death. These important points have not been, but need to be fully disclosed to the public and incorporated into fully informed consent. These are tall orders, and require open public debate. Until this debate occurs, we call for a moratorium on the practice of DCD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 56 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Bachelor 11 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 12%
Other 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 42%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Psychology 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Arts and Humanities 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 10 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 May 2016.
All research outputs
#7,959,162
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#151
of 234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,613
of 249,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#9
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 234 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 249,534 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.