Sandra Woien

Background Requirements for organ donation after cardiac or imminent death have been introduced to address the transplantable organs shortage in the United States. Organ procurement organizations (OPOs) increasingly use the Internet for organ donation consent. Methods An analysis of OPO Web sites available to the public for enrollment and consent for organ donation. The Web sites and consent forms were examined for the minimal information recommended by the United States Department of Health and Human Services for informed consent. Content scores were calculated as percentages of data elements in four information categories: donor knowledge, donor consent reinforcement, donation promotion, and informed consent. Results There were 60 Web sites for organ donation enrollment serving the 52 states. The median percent (10 percentile-90 percentile) content scores of the Web sites for donor knowledge, donor consent reinforcement, and donation promotion were 33% (20–47), 79% (57–86), and 75% (50–100), respectively. The informed consent score was 0% (0–33). The content scores for donor knowledge and informed consent were significantly lower than donor consent reinforcement and donation promotion for all Web sites (P < .05). The content scores for the four categories were similar among the 11 regions of the United Network for Organ Sharing. Conclusion The Web sites and consent forms for public enrollment in organ donation do not fulfill the necessary requirements for informed consent. The Web sites predominantly provide positive reinforcement and promotional information rather than the transparent disclosure of organ donation process. Independent regulatory oversight is essential to ensure that Internet enrollment for organ donation complies with legal and ethical standards for informed consent

Background Requirements for organ donation after cardiac or imminent death have been introduced to address the transplantable organs shortage in the United States. Organ procurement organizations increasingly use the Internet for organ donation consent. Methods An analysis of OPO Web sites available to the public for enrollment and consent for organ donation. The Web sites and consent forms were examined for the minimal information recommended by the United States Department of Health and Human Services for informed consent. Content scores were calculated as percentages of data elements in four information categories: donor knowledge, donor consent reinforcement, donation promotion, and informed consent. Results There were 60 Web sites for organ donation enrollment serving the 52 states. The median percent content scores of the Web sites for donor knowledge, donor consent reinforcement, and donation promotion were 33%, 79%, and 75%, respectively. The informed consent score was 0%. The content scores for donor knowledge and informed consent were significantly lower than donor consent reinforcement and donation promotion for all Web sites ( P Conclusion The Web sites and consent forms for public enrollment in organ donation do not fulfill the necessary requirements for informed consent. The Web sites predominantly provide positive reinforcement and promotional information rather than the transparent disclosure of organ donation process. Independent regulatory oversight is essential to ensure that Internet enrollment for organ donation complies with legal and ethical standards for informed consent.

Sam Harris, a previously unknown neuroscientist, single-handedly generated the New Atheism with his best-selling book The End of Faith, which quickly became a huge best-seller following its release in 2004. Harris went on to write several more best-sellers on a range of topics and has become one of the world's most followed podcasters. He is well-known for his controversial positions in many areas, including the unique danger of Islam, the advocacy of atheist spirituality through meditation, the beneficial use of psychedelics, denial of the existence of free will, his belief that science can tell us what's right and wrong, and his extreme alarmism with regard to the future of artificial intelligence. Sam Harris: Critical Responses is a collection of essays criticizing different aspects of Harris's thinking from a range of diverse perspectives--left and right, Christian and atheist, philosophical, psychological, and political. These twenty serious criticisms of Sam Harris, written by experts from diverse political and ideological backgrounds, are often severe while maintaining an approach that is reasonable and respectful. As one noted author commented on Sandra Woien's previous collection, Jordan Peterson: Critical Responses, "Both fans and foes will appreciate this volume." Forward by Stephen R. C. Hicks. Stephen R.C. Hicks is a professor of Philosophy at Rockford University. He is the author of Explaining Postmodernism (2004) and Nietzsche and the Nazis (2010).

The Canadian psychology professor Jordan Peterson burst into public awareness when he opposed the compulsory use of newfangled gender-pronouns. He has since published two best-selling books, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (2018) and Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life (2021), and has become the leading public intellectual on social media.Although Peterson has an almost cult-like following, and arouses strong passions, both for and against, there has been very little focused, objective criticism of his provocative views on a wide variety of topics: the role of religion, the alleged need for more value and meaning in the modern world, the way young people should conduct their lives, the history of Marxism and postmodernism, male-female relations; the interpretation of Bible stories, the inevitability of hierarchy and inequality, and the application of Jungian archetypes.Jordan Peterson: Critical Responses brings together new and searching criticisms of various specific aspects of Peterson's ideas. Though on balance decidedly critical, the authors represent a range of different backgrounds and philosophical assumptions, and the criticisms are fair and temperate, eschewing the personal attacks which have marred many of the pronouncements of Peterson's opponents.