Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Stuart J Youngner

Publications and source records attributed to Stuart J Youngner.

11 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

Death and organ procurement: public beliefs and attitudes.

While brain death and the dead donor rule (patients must not be killed by organ retrieval) have been clinically and legally accepted in the US as a prerequisite to organ removal, there is little data about public attitudes and beliefs concerning these matters. To examine the public attitudes and beliefs about the determination of death and its relationship to organ transplantation, 1351 Ohio residents >or=18 years were randomly selected and surveyed using random digit dialing (RDD) sample frames. The RDD telephone survey was conducted using computer-assisted telephone interviews. The survey instrument was developed from information provided by 12 focus groups and a pilot study of the questionnaire. Three scenarios based on hypothetical patients were presented: brain dead, in a coma, or in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Respondents' provided personal assessments of whether the patient in each scenario was dead and their willingness to donate that patient's organs in these circumstances. Over 98% of respondents had heard of the term brain death, but only one-third (33.7%) believed that someone who was brain dead was legally dead. The majority of respondents (86.2%) identified the brain dead patient in the first scenario as dead, 57.2% identified the patient in a coma as dead (Scenario 2), and 34.1% identified the patient in a PVS as dead (Scenario 3). Nearly, a third (33.5%) were willing to donate the organs of patients they classified as alive for at least one scenario, in seeming violation of the dead donor rule. Most respondents were not willing to violate the dead donor rule, although a substantial minority was. However, the majority of respondents were unaware, misinformed or held beliefs that were not congruent with current definitions of brain death. This study highlights the need for more public dialogue and education about brain death and organ donation.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Death and organ procurement: public beliefs and attitudes.

Although "brain death" and the dead donor rule--i.e., patients must not be killed by organ retrieval--have been clinically and legally accepted in the U.S. as prerequisites to organ removal, there is little data about public attitudes and beliefs concerning these matters. To examine the public attitudes and beliefs about the determination of death and its relationship to organ transplantation, 1351 Ohio residents >18 years were randomly selected and surveyed using random digit dialing (RDD) sample frames. The RDD telephone survey was conducted using computer-assisted telephone interviews. The survey instrument was developed from information provided by 12 focus groups and a pilot study of the questionnaire. Three scenarios based on hypothetical patients were presented: "brain dead," in a coma, or in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Respondents provided personal assessments of whether the patient in each scenario was dead and their willingness to donate that patient's organs in these circumstances. More than 98 percent of respondents had heard of the term "brain death," but only one-third (33.7%) believed that someone who was "brain dead" was legally dead. The majority of respondents (86.2%) identified the "brain dead" patient in the first scenario as dead, 57.2 percent identified the patient in a coma as dead (Scenario 2), and 34.1 percent identified the patient in a PVS as dead (Scenario 3). Nearly one-third (33.5%) were willing to donate the organs of patients they classified as alive for at least one scenario, in seeming violation of the dead donor rule. Most respondents were not willing to violate the dead donor rule, although a substantial minority was. However, the majority of respondents were unaware, misinformed, or held beliefs there were not congruent with current definitions of "brain death." This study highlights the need for more public dialogue and education about "brain death" and organ donation.

Brain Damage, Chronic↗
PubMed2004

Introduction.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Anencephaly↗
PubMed2003

Intrinsic conflicts of interest in clinical research: a need for disclosure.

Protection of human subjects from investigators' conflicts of interest is critical to the integrity of clinical investigation. Personal financial conflicts of interest are addressed by university policies, professional society guidelines, public standards, and government regulation, but "intrinsic conflict of interest"--conflicts of interest inherent in all clinical research--have received relatively less attention. Such conflicts arise in all clinical research endeavors as a result of the tension among professionals' responsibilities to their research and to their patients and both academic and financial incentives. These conflicts should be disclosed to research subjects and managed as assiduously as are financial conflicts of interest.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed1996

Bending the rules that bent the rules.

In an interview with the Medical Ethics Advisor about the controversy surrounding the use of non-heartbeating cadaver donors (NHBCDs), James Childress asks, "Are some current ethical boundaries moveable in this debate?" To save more lives and give more families the option of donation, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) Protocol for NHBCDs has already moved ethical boundaries. The revisions in the Protocol, described by DeVita and Snyder in this issue of CQ, move them further still. While the University of Pittsburgh can be praised for developing a clear protocol and subjecting it to wide and open scrutiny, many of the arguments offered by DeVita and Snyder to justify specific changes in the protocol are not convincing.

Cadaver↗
PubMed1992

Should a school honor a student's DNR order? A physician/ethicist responds: a student's rights are not so simple.

...S.A. has a right to refuse treatment, but the school has a responsibility to others as well as S.A. By insisting on activating 911, the school risks violating her rights. But by agreeing to a rigid demand not to call 911, the school risks harming S.A., her schoolmates, and teachers. S.A. could be harmed in two ways: by having to endure a prolonged and painful death or by not being treated for an acute, reversible event that further compromises her life without ending it. Her fellow schoolmates and teachers could be harmed by being put in a position to exercise judgments and accept responsibilities for which they are neither professionally nor emotionally equipped....

Adolescent↗