Rady Mohamed Y, McGregor Joan L, Verheijde Joseph L
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic Hospital, 5777 East Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA,
Med Health Care Philos. 2013 Nov;16(4):869-76. doi: 10.1007/s11019-013-9466-4.
We respond to Morgan and Feeley's critique on our article "Mass Media in Organ Donation: Managing Conflicting Messages and Interests." We noted that Morgan and Feeley agree with the position that the primary aims of media campaigns are: "to educate the general public about organ donation process" and "help individuals make informed decisions" about organ donation. For those reasons, the educational messages in media campaigns should not be restricted to "information from pilot work or focus groups" but should include evidence-based facts resulting from a comprehensive literature research. We consider the controversial aspects about organ donation to be relevant, if not necessary, educational materials that must be disclosed in media campaigns to comply with the legal and moral requirements of informed consent. With that perspective in mind, we address the validity of Morgan and Feeley's claim that media campaigns have no need for informing the public about the controversial nature of death determination in organ donation. Scientific evidence has proven that the criteria for death determination are inconsistent with the Uniform Determination of Death Act and therefore potentially harmful to donors. The decision by campaign designers to use the statutory definition of death without disclosing the current controversies surrounding that definition does not contribute to improved informed decision making. We argue that if Morgan and Feeley accept the important role of media campaigns to enhance informed decision making, then critical controversies should be disclosed. In support of that premise, we will outline: (1) the wide-spread scientific challenges to brain death as a concept of death; (2) the influence of the donor registry and team-huddling on the medical care of potential donors; (3) the use of authorization rather than informed consent for donor registration; (4) the contemporary religious controversy; and (5) the effects of training desk clerks as organ requestors at the Department of Motor Vehicles offices. We conclude that organ donation is a medical procedure subject to all the ethical obligations that the medical profession must uphold including that of transparency and truthfulness.
我们回应摩根和费利对我们文章《器官捐献中的大众媒体:管理相互冲突的信息和利益》的批评。我们注意到摩根和费利认同这样的观点,即媒体宣传活动的主要目标是:“向公众普及器官捐献过程”以及“帮助个人就器官捐献做出明智的决定”。基于这些原因,媒体宣传活动中的教育信息不应局限于“试点工作或焦点小组的信息”,而应包括全面文献研究得出的循证事实。我们认为,器官捐献中存在争议的方面即便不是必要的,也是相关的教育材料,必须在媒体宣传活动中披露,以符合知情同意的法律和道德要求。基于这一观点,我们探讨摩根和费利所声称的媒体宣传活动无需向公众告知器官捐献中死亡判定的争议性质这一说法的合理性。科学证据已证明,死亡判定标准与《统一死亡判定法案》不一致,因此可能对捐献者有害。宣传活动设计者决定采用死亡的法定定义却不披露围绕该定义当前存在的争议,这无助于改善明智决策。我们认为,如果摩根和费利认可媒体宣传活动在促进明智决策方面的重要作用,那么关键的争议就应该被披露。为支持这一前提,我们将概述:(1)作为死亡概念的脑死亡面临的广泛科学挑战;(2)捐赠者登记册和团队碰头会对潜在捐赠者医疗护理的影响;(3)在捐赠者登记中使用授权而非知情同意;(4)当代宗教争议;以及(5)在机动车管理部门办公室培训前台职员作为器官请求者的影响。我们得出结论,器官捐献是一种医疗程序,须遵循医学专业必须秉持的所有道德义务,包括透明度和真实性的义务。