4.4 Article

Perspectives of Medical Organizations, Organ Procurement Organizations, and Advocacy Organizations About Revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA)

期刊

NEUROCRITICAL CARE
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-023-01872-5

关键词

Brain death; Ethics; Medicolegal; UDDA; Uniform Law Commission

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article discusses the pause in the revision of the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) by the Uniform Law Commission, and the thematic review of comments submitted by medical organizations, organ procurement organizations, and advocacy organizations. While most organizations support revision, there are differing viewpoints on the approach, making it difficult to reach a consensus.
BackgroundThe Uniform Law Commission paused work of the Drafting Committee to Revise the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) in September 2023.MethodsThematic review was performed of comments submitted to the Uniform Law Commission by medical organizations (MO), organ procurement organizations (OPO), and advocacy organizations (AO) from 1/1/2023 to 7/31/2023.ResultsOf comments from 41 organizations (22 AO, 15 MO, 4 OPO), 34 (83%) supported UDDA revision (50% OPO, 33% MO recommended against revision). The most comments addressed modifications to all functions of the entire brain, including the brainstem (31; 95% AO, 75% OPO, 47% MO), followed by irreversible versus permanent (25; 77% AO, 50% OPO, 40% MO), accommodation of brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) objections (23; 100% OPO, 80% MO, 32% AO), consent for BD/DNC evaluation (18; 75% OPO, 47% MO, 36% AO), accepted medical standards (13; 36% AO, 33% MO, 0% OPO), notification before BD/DNC evaluation (14; 100% OPO, 53% MO, 9% AO), time to gather before discontinuation of organ support after BD/DNC determination (12; 60% MO, 25% OPO, 9% AO), and BD/DNC examiner credential requirements (2; 13% MO, 0% AO, 0% OPO). The predominant themes were that the revised UDDA should include the term irreversible and shouldn't (1) stipulate specific medical guidelines, (2) require notification before BD/DNC evaluation, or (3) require time to gather before discontinuation of organ support after BD/DNC determination. Views on other topics were mixed, but MO and OPO generally advocated for the revised UDDA to take a functional approach to BD/DNC, not require consent for BD/DNC evaluation, and not require opt-out accommodation of BD/DNC objections. Contrastingly, many AO and some MO with religious affiliations or a focus on advocacy favored the revised UDDA take an anatomic approach to BD/DNC or eliminate BD/DNC altogether, require consent for BD/DNC evaluation, and require opt-out accommodation of BD/DNC objections.ConclusionsMost commenting organizations support UDDA revision, but perspectives on the approach vary, so the Drafting Committee could not formulate revisions that would be agreeable to all stakeholders.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据