Families should not be allowed to veto dead relatives' organ donation wishes

It has recently been suggested that patients should be kept alive using elective ventilation to facilitate the harvesting of organs for donation. But David Shaw, Honorary Lecturer at the University of Aberdeen believes there is a much simpler way to increase the number of donated organs – by ensuring that doctors respect the wishes of the deceased and over-rule any veto.

Veto by the is the main impediment to an increase in organ donation, with at least 10% of families refusing to donate. Yet Shaw points out that families have no legal grounds for over-riding the dead person's wishes if that person clearly wanted to donate - for example, by carrying an organ donor card - and they often come to regret their decision.

He suggests that clinicians who heed the veto "are complicit in a family denying its loved one's last chance to affect the world."

Giving in to the family, he says, "is unprofessional and lets down the patient and potential recipients of the ' organs elsewhere." Furthermore, the patient's organs have gone to waste, and several people have died as a result.

The family cannot be blamed for refusing to allow donation under such stress, and most doctors are reluctant to add to a family's suffering, he writes. However, he argues that doctors "are professionals with obligations to respect the wishes of the dead patient and to promote the health of the public."

Shaw urges clinicians in this position to conduct a thought experiment. As well as the family that is there in front of them, he says "they should also imagine confronting the families of those who will die as a consequence of not receiving the donor's organs."

Although we should treat the family compassionately, doctors do not have the same duty to the family as to dying patients or other patients who need organs, he adds.

He concludes: "To respect a family's veto when the patient was on the organ donor register is a failure of moral imagination that leads to a violation of the dead person's wishes and causes the death of several people (and all the sorrow consequent to this), and many family members who stop donation come to regret their decision. Moving towards elective ventilation might alienate would-be donors and will not be necessary if remember that respecting a veto of is unethical, unprofessional, and against the spirit of the law."

More information: www.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.e5275

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Ethicist urges tax credits to spur organ donation

Jun 03, 2010

A University of Montreal philosopher and ethicist is proposing that governments implement an organ donation tax credit to help increase the number of organs available for transplant.

Improving family consent in organ donation could save lives

Dec 22, 2011

Research published today in the British Journal of Anaesthesia suggests that organ donation rates in the UK could be increased if the current issues affecting declined consent are improved. At present, only 30% of the UK ...

New organ donor law raise ethics concerns

Apr 04, 2007

A model law updating U.S. organ donation procedures that is being circulated among states is raising ethics concerns about dying patients' rights and wishes.

Recommended for you

Were clinical trial practices in East Germany questionable?

Oct 23, 2014

Clinical trials carried out in the former East Germany in the second half of the 20th century were not always with the full knowledge or understanding of participants with some questionable practices taking place, according ...

Schumacher's doctor sees progress after injury

Oct 23, 2014

A French physician who treated Michael Schumacher for nearly six months after the Formula One champion struck his head in a ski accident says he is no longer in a coma and predicted a possible recovery within three years.

User comments