David Rodríguez

Since the 1960s, organ procurement policies have relied on the boundary of death—advertised as though it were a factual, value‐free, and unobjectionable event—to foster organ donation while minimizing controversy. Death determination, however, involves both discoveries of facts and events and decisions about their meaning (whether the facts and events are relevant to establish a vital status), the latter being subjected to legitimate disagreements requiring deliberation. By revisiting the historical origin of the dead donor rule, including some events that took place in France prior to the report by the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death, I want to recall that those who first promoted the DDR did not take into account any scientific rationale to support the new proposed criteria to determine death. Rather, through a process of factual re‐semantization, they authorized themselves to decide about the meaning of death in order to implicitly prioritize the interests of organ recipients over those of dying people.

Two main types of philosophical arguments have been given in support of the claim that the citizens of affluent societies have stringent moral duties to aid the global poor: “positive duty” arguments based on the notion of beneficence and “negative duty” arguments based on noninterference. Peter Singer’s positive duty argument (Singer 1972) and Thomas Pogge’s negative duty argument (Pogge 2002) are among the most prominent examples. Philosophers have made speculative claims about the relative effectiveness of these arguments in promoting attitudes and behaviors that could lead to the alleviation of poverty. In this article we present the results of two empirical studies that evaluate these claims, and suggest that both arguments have a modest effect on people’s attitudes and behaviors regarding global poverty. In a replication of the second study, the negative duty argument, in particular, had a statistically significant effect on donations. We discuss the theoretical and practical significance of these results and suggest directions for further research on the role that philosophical arguments can play in engendering concern and action on pressing moral problems.

Background: This research explores how public awareness and attitudes toward donation and transplantation policies may contribute to Spain's success in cadaveric organ donation. Materials and Methods: A representative sample of 813 people residing in Andalusia (Southern Spain) were surveyed by telephone or via Internet between October and December 2018. Results: Most participants trust Spain's donation and transplantation system (93%) and wish to donate their organs after death (76%). Among donors, a majority have expressed their consent (59%), and few nondonors have expressed their refusal (14%). Only a minority are aware of the presumed consent system in force (28%) and feel sufficiently informed regarding the requirements needed to be an organ donor (16%). Participants mainly consider that relatives should represent the deceased's preferences and be consulted when the deceased's wishes are unknown, as is the case in Spain. Conclusion: Public trust in the transplant system may contribute to Spain's high performance in organ donation. High levels of societal support toward organ donation and transplantation do not correspond with similar levels of public awareness of donation and transplantation policies in Spain.

Background: Several countries have recently changed their model of consent for organ donation from opt-in to opt-out. We undertook a systematic review to determine public knowledge and attitudes towards these models in Europe. Methods: Six databases were explored between 1 January 2008 and 15 December 2017. We selected empirical studies addressing either knowledge or attitudes towards the systems of consent for deceased organ donation by lay people in Europe, including students. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted by two or more reviewers independently. Findings: Awareness of the consent model was lower in opt-out countries than in opt-in countries. A majority of the public agrees with opt-in, regardless of the law in their own country. There are ambivalent attitudes regarding the opt-out system. The public tend to prefer opt-in and mandatory choice over opt-out when several options are offered. Interpretation: The assumption that people in opt-out countries are aware of the legal requirements to be excluded from the pool of potential donors is not supported by the results of this review. This is a concern, since ignorance hinders people's autonomy regarding organ donation decision-making. Higher awareness of consent model in opt-in countries may reflect greater efforts to inform the public through campaigns to motivate donation. Legal moves towards opt-out are at odds with people's expressed preferences. Main limitations of this review are the lack of data from some countries, study population heterogeneity, and methodological shortcomings.

Background Consent policies for post-mortem organ procurement (OP) vary throughout Europe, and yet no studies have empirically evaluated the ethical implications of contrasting consent models. To fill this gap, we introduce a novel indicator of governance quality based on the ideal of informed support, and examine national differences on this measure through a quantitative survey of OP policy informedness and preferences in seven European countries. Methods Between 2017–2019, we conducted a convenience sample survey of students (n = 2006) in Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Denmark (DK), Germany (DE), Greece (GR), Slovenia (SI) and Spain (ES), asking participants about their donation preferences, as well as their beliefs and views about the policy in place. From these measures, we computed indices of informedness, policy support, and fulfilment of unexpressed preferences, which we compared across countries and consent systems. Results Our study introduces a tool for analyzing policy governance in the context of OP. Wide variation in policy awareness was observed: Most respondents in DK, DE, AT and BE correctly identified the policy in place, while those in SI, GR and ES did not. Respondents in opt-out countries (AT, BE, ES and GR) tended to support the policy in place (with one exception, i.e., SI), whereas those in opt-in countries (DE and DK) overwhelmingly opposed it. These results reveal stark differences in governance quality across countries and consent policies: We found a preponderance of informed opposition in opt-in countries and a general tendency towards support–either informed or uninformed–in opt-out countries. We also found informed divergence in opt-in countries and a tendency for convergence–either informed or uninformed–among opt-out countries. Conclusion Our study offers a novel tool for analyzing governance quality and illustrates, in the context of OP, how the strengths and weaknesses of different policy implementations can be estimated and compared using quantitative survey data.

This paper analyses the arguments for and against what we have called automatic organ procurement model in relation to the organs of the deceased. For this purpose, this work provides empirical evidence to assess the potential impact of this model on donation rates and on public opinion. Specifically, we examine first the reasons supporting this model, with special reference to utilitarian and justice arguments. On the other hand, we analyse both the approaches based on the violation of pre mortem and post mortem interests opposing this theoretical model and the rejection the model would generate in the population. Finally, we point out the aspects that, in our opinion, should be exhaustively regulated if this model were implemented. In particular, we refer to the legal status of the human body, the treatments for end-of-life patients, the incentives for health professionals and the recognition of the right to conscientious objection

Goal: To assess public knowledge and attitudes towards the family’s role in deceased organ donation in Europe. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in CINHAL, MEDLINE, PAIS Index, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science on December 15th, 2017. Eligibility criteria were socio-empirical studies conducted in Europe from 2008 to 2017 addressing either knowledge or attitudes by the public towards the consent system, including the involvement of the family in the decision-making process, for post-mortem organ retrieval. Screening and data collection were performed by two or more independent reviewers for each record. Results: Of the 1482 results, 467 studies were assessed in full-text form, and 33 were included in this synthesis. When the deceased has not expressed any preference, a majority of the public support the family's role as a surrogate decision-maker. When the deceased expressly consented, the respondents' answers depend on whether they see themselves as potential donors or as a deceased's next-of-kin. Answers also depend on the relationship between the deceased and the decision-maker(s) within the family, and on their ethnic or cultural background. Conclusions: Public views on the authority of the family in organ donation decision-making require further research. A common conceptual framework and validated well-designed questionnaires are needed for future studies. The findings should be considered in the development of Government policy and guidance regarding the role of families in deceased organ donation.

Organ shortage constitutes an unsolved problem for every country that offers transplantation as a therapeutic option. Besides the largely implemented donation model and the eventually implemented market model, a theorized automatic organ procurement model has raised a rich debate in the legal, medical and bioethical community, since it could show a higher potential to solve organ shortage. In this paper, we study the main arguments for and against this model. We show how, in the light of empirical data extracted from countries with a universal health care system, its implementation could lead to a positive impact on organ procurement rates. Three factors are envisioned as fundamental in the comprehension and a possible regulation of the automatic organ procurement model: the lack of recognition of the conscientious objection, the preservation of the right to choose end of life conditions, and the need to avoid incentives for families or healthcare professionals.

Most analyses of international wildlife law focus on the specifics of implementing particular policies, while there is less engagement with the fundamental philosophies underpinning international conventions. In this article, I argue that a philosophical analysis can achieve a deeper understanding of IWL by helping to identify, assess and compare worldviews reflected in these instruments. Additionally, a philosophical analysis can make visible how international wildlife conventions shape human perceptions of and attitudes towards nature. Based on these premises, I subject two international wildlife conventions that are central to wildlife management in Europe, namely, the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, to philosophical scrutiny. I argue, first, that the philosophical underpinnings of these instruments are in contention, indicating that their policies might well counteract each other. Second, I postulate that the broad significance of this contention is that the resulting ambivalence when IWL instruments are involved in the same conversation and about the same territoriality results in such high discretional powers for states that they stop being bounded by the conventions’ substratum and can limit themselves to only following the formalities.

Since 1968, the irreversible loss of functioning of the whole brain, called brain death, is assimilated to individual’s death. The almost universal acceptance of this neurological criterion of death had decisive consequences for the contemporary medicine, such as the withdrawal of mechanical ventilation in these patients and organ retrieval for transplantation. The new criterion was successfully accepted in part because the assimilation of brain death state to death was presented by medicine --and acritically assumed by most of societies-- as a scientific and objective fact. Nevertheless, many people do not think that the patients suffering brain death are actually dead. We show here that those people are not necessarily wrong. It can be argued that, in fact, the justification of the neurological criterion is not scientific but moral. We outline the thesis that the problem surrounding the vital status of brain dead patients is due to a confusion between factual and normative questions. Furthermore, we claim that the donation of organs and the withdrawal of life-support could be ethically acceptable even if the patients suffering brain death are considered as alive. As an alternative to the dead donor rule, we propose a justification for organ donation of brain-dead patients based on the (moral) concepts of harm and consent : what truly justifies the procurement of organs on those patients is not that they are dead, but that they wish to donate their organs and that, since they have irreversibly lost their brain, they cannot be harmed.

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory death, which occurs when an individual has experienced unexpected cardiac arrest, usually not in a hospital, generates both excitement and concern. On the one hand, uDCD programs have the capacity to significantly increase organ donation rates, with good transplant outcomes—mainly for kidneys, but also for livers and lungs. On the other hand, uDCD raises a number of ethical challenges. In this essay, we focus on an issue that is central to all uDCD protocols: When should we cease resuscitation and shift to organ preservation? Do current uDCD protocols prematurely consider as potential donors patients who could still have some chances of meaningful survival? Can the best interest of patients be fostered once they are considered and treated as potential donors?

En los últimos treinta años se ha transitado desde una concepción del capital humano como una macromagnitud económica a una idea de capital humano corporeizada en el individuo. Hemos asistido a una progresiva infiltración de dicha ideología del capital humano también en la vida de la juventud precaria. Nos centramos aquí en los jóvenes universitarios, para quienes el capital humano, ya de forma hegemónica, dirige y marca sus recorridos laborales y vitales. El análisis de los discursos de estos jóvenes nos permitirá explorar desde la imposición de la lógica de la movilidad laboral, a la sujeción a las formas de "emprendedor de sí mismo" y a la normalización, como parte del proceso de incorporación de capital humano, de formas de empleo progresivamente al margen de los derechos y garantías laborales clásicas del trabajo salariado.

La normalización de la precariedad entre las personas jóvenes está entrando en lo que parece una nueva fase. De la mano de, entre otros factores, los discursos empresariales y la teoría del capital humano, estamos asistiendo a una vuelta de tuerca en la presión sobre la juventud: ya no basta con la búsqueda «activa» de empleo, ahora hay que invertir en uno mismo como «empresario de sí mismo» y, en esta lógica, si es preciso hay que optar por la «movilidad internacional». Presentamos una revisión teórica y conceptual alrededor de lo que se conoce como fuga de cerebros y su justificación discursiva. Estamos ante un proceso que probablemente dejará una marca importante en una generación que ha visto truncadas sus posibilidades de transición a situaciones estables, idealmente identificadas con el mundo adulto.

En los últimos treinta años se ha transitado desde una concepción del capital humano como una macromagnitud económica a una idea de capital humano corporeizada en el individuo. Hemos asistido a una progresiva infiltración de dicha ideología del capital humano también en la vida de la juventud precaria. Nos centramos aquí en los jóvenes universitarios, para quienes el capital humano, ya de forma hegemónica, dirige y marca sus recorridos laborales y vitales. El análisis de los discursos de estos jóvenes nos permitirá explorar desde la imposición de la lógica de la movilidad laboral, a la sujeción a las formas de "emprendedor de sí mismo" y a la normalización, como parte del proceso de incorporación de capital humano, de formas de empleo progresivamente al margen de los derechos y garantías laborales clásicas del trabajo salariado.In the last thirty years it has been gone from a conception of the human capital as an economic macro magnitude to an idea of human capital embodied in the individuals. We have been witnesses of the progressive infiltration of this ideology of the human capital also in the life of precarious youth. We focus in the university young people, for those who the human capital, already of hegemonic form, directs and marks its labour and vital routes. The analysis of the discourses of these young people will allow us to explore the imposition of the logic of labour mobility, the subjection to the forms of «entrepreneur of itself» and also the normalization of forms of work progressively excluded from the rights and classic labour guarantees as a part of the process of incorporation of human capital.

La normalización de la precariedad entre las personas jóvenes está entrando en lo que parece una nueva fase. De la mano de, entre otros factores, los discursos empresariales y la teoría del capital humano, estamos asistiendo a una vuelta de tuerca en la presión sobre la juventud: ya no basta con la búsqueda «activa» de empleo, ahora hay que invertir en uno mismo como «empresario de sí mismo» y, en esta lógica, si es preciso hay que optar por la «movilidad internacional». Presentamos una revisión teórica y conceptual alrededor de lo que se conoce como fuga de cerebros y su justificación discursiva. Estamos ante un proceso que probablemente dejará una marca importante en una generación que ha visto truncadas sus posibilidades de transición a situaciones estables, idealmente identificadas con el mundo adulto.Normalization of precariousness among young people is entering in a new phase. Led by, among other factors, the human capital theory, we are witnessing a twist in pressure on young people: it is no longer enough with «active» job search, now you have to invest in yourself as entrepreneur of yourself’ and in this logic, maybe young people must choose for the «international mobility», which is represented as a cosmopolitan option. We present a theoretical and conceptual review around what is known as brain drain and its discursive justification. We are facing a process that will probably leave a significant mark on a generation whose chances of transition to stable situations have been truncated, ideally identified with the adult world.

El libro Las generaciones que llegaron tarde presenta los resultados de un trabajo sobre los usos, las estrategias y las percepciones de las generaciones mayores en relación a las tecnologías de la información y de la comunicación. Las apropiaciones de los y las mayores en los ámbitos laboral, relacional y familiar, así como en el ocio, son objeto de análisis a partir de entrevistas en profundidad. Entre los principales resultados destaca el que, a pesar de la gran capacidad de adaptación de las personas mayores a los nuevos entornos digitales, la sociedad informacional sigue avanzando a ritmos desiguales: mientras penetra y media en buena parte de las dinámicas sociales, sigue dejando en los márgenes a una parte de la población perteneciente a las generaciones de más edad.

The ever‐increasing demand for organs led Spain, France, and other European countries to promote uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (uDCDD). For the same reason, New York City has recently developed its own uDCDD protocol, which differs from European programs in some key ways. The New York protocol incorporates a series of technical and management improvements that address some practical problems identified in response to European uDCDD protocols. However, the more fundamental issue of whether uDCDD donors are dead when organs are procured remains problematic for the New York City protocol and, indeed, for all uDCDD protocols. In the United States, two amendments to the legal criteria of death have been suggested to avoid a formal violation of the dead donor rule in DCDD protocols: first, replacing the requirement “irreversible” with the weaker term “permanent,” and second, using the term “circulatory” instead of “cardiac” to identify the key function that must be lost to declare death. While intended to facilitate controlled DCDD, these modifications create a problem for uDCDD protocols: if extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is introduced to preserve the organs, then circulation is restored after death is declared. In this issue of the Hastings Center Report, Kevin Munjal and colleagues call for a new ethical construct and policy so that uncontrolled and controlled DCDD can coexist.

In this issue of the Report, James L. Bernat proposes an innovative and sophisticated distinction to justify the introduction of permanent cessation as a valid substitute standard for irreversible cessation in death determination. He differentiates two approaches to conceptualizing and determining death: the biological concept and the prevailing medical practice standard. While irreversibility is required by the biological concept, the weaker criterion of permanence, he claims, has always sufficed in the accepted standard medical practice to declare death. Bernat argues that the medical practice standard may be acceptable on the ground that proving circulatory or brain permanence is sufficient to assure complete accuracy for death diagnosis. The topic requires public deliberation: processes to survey people's opinions and mechanisms to channel their opinions into policy-making. What is at stake is the nature of our society. Do we want an expertocracy, in which an enlightened few design policies for the greater good of the majority and exploit the lack of public knowledge to achieve compliance?

In Italy, judicial and extrajudicial requests for paternity testing have increased in recent years. A retrospective analysis of such private extrajudicial requests received by the legal medicine unit of the Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health of Padua University was conducted to identify problem areas most helpful in determining whether to accept private parties’ requests for paternity testing. Such testing is most delicate when a presumptive father may be seeking to disown paternity and when testing is wanted without the consent of a member of the mother–child–father triangle. Tests that could establish paternity where none has been recognised are less problematic, as the child will not lose out. Legal and ethical–deontological aspects of consent, of the protection of minors and of children’s and parents’ need for follow-up interviews to deal with the outcome of such testing are carefully considered by the Padua University team when deciding whether to accept a request for testing. It is argued that because such issues are not dealt with by mail-order laboratories, the use of such services is inappropriate

It was only after James P. Lovette's death, in 2006, that I discovered that the twenty‐four‐year‐old colleague and friend with whom I had spent so many afternoons debating issues in organ transplantation had been the first successful child heart transplantee in the world and one of the longest‐living survivors of a second transplant. During the years we met, he never even hinted at the fact that three different hearts had beaten in his chest. The revelation that his life had been an almost uninterrupted chain of medical challenges suddenly made me appreciate his quirkiness in a whole new light.Organ transplantation crudely exemplifies a traditional moral dilemma between means and ends: in order to save a life, someone else has to die. Bioethicists involved in this field have the role of identifying the ethical issues surrounding organ donation and helping others to argue in an intelligible and convincing way. In my view, bioethicists have the obligation to foster a discussion as open and transparent as possible on these matters. Still, I sometimes fear that I may be helping to cause unnecessary harms to potential recipients who are desperately waiting for a vital organ. Scholars would be chillingly cold if their quest for truth systematically came at the cost of lives lost. Every life can be meaningful and provide meaning to many others. This is true even with organ recipients, who often have short lives full of considerable suffering.

Several studies have explored differences between North American and European doctor patient relationships. They have focused primarily on differences in philosophical traditions and historic and socioeconomic factors between these two regions that might lead to differences in behaviour, as well as divergent concepts in and justifications of medical practice. However, few empirical intercultural studies have been carried out to identify in practice these cultural differences. This lack of standard comparative empirical studies led us to compare differences between France and the USA regarding end-of-life decision-making. We tested certain assertions put forward by bioethicists concerning the impact of culture on the acceptance of advance directives in such decisions. In particular, we compared North American and French intensive care professional's attitudes toward: advance directives, and the role of the family in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-support.

Despite continuing controversies regarding the vital status of both brain-dead donors and individuals who undergo donation after circulatory death (DCD), respecting the dead donor rule (DDR) remains the standard moral framework for organ procurement. The DDR increases organ supply without jeopardizing trust in transplantation systems, reassuring society that donors will not experience harm during organ procurement. While the assumption that individuals cannot be harmed once they are dead is reasonable in the case of brain-dead protocols, we argue that the DDR is not an acceptable strategy to protect donors from harm in DCD protocols. We propose a threefold alternative to justify organ procurement practices: (1) ensuring that donors are sufficiently protected from harm; (2) ensuring that they are respected through informed consent; and (3) ensuring that society is fully informed of the inherently debatable nature of any criterion to declare death