Thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion: Is it ethical?

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS
Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-29 DOI:10.1007/s40592-025-00229-2
Caner Turan
{"title":"Thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion: Is it ethical?","authors":"Caner Turan","doi":"10.1007/s40592-025-00229-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP), a new method of controlled donation after circulatory death, seems to provide more and better organs for patients on organ transplant waiting lists compared to standard controlled donation after circulatory death. Despite its benefits, the ethical permissibility of TA-NRP is currently a highly debated issue. The recent statement published by the American College of Physicians (ACP) highlights the reasons for these debates. Critics' main concern is that TA-NRP violates the Dead Donor Rule. This paper presents an ethical analysis of the objections raised by the ACP against TA-NRP and argues that TA-NRP is not only morally permissible but also morally required where it is financially and technically feasible. To support this conclusion, the concepts of 'resuscitation,' 'intention,' 'irreversibility,' 'permanence,' 'impossibility,' and 'respect' in the context of TA-NRP are explored. Additionally, the ethical permissibility of this procedure is evaluated through the lenses of Utilitarianism, Kantianism, the core principles of bioethics, and the Doctrine of Double Effect. This ethical analysis demonstrates why the ACP's objection lacks a solid moral foundation and conflates moral and legal considerations. This paper also argues that extra measures are needed to ensure the moral permissibility of TA-NRP, emphasizing the importance of informed consent, additional brain blood flow and activity monitoring, and a contingency plan to abort the organ procurement process if a sign of morally relevant brain activity is detected.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":"166-189"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12202569/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-025-00229-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP), a new method of controlled donation after circulatory death, seems to provide more and better organs for patients on organ transplant waiting lists compared to standard controlled donation after circulatory death. Despite its benefits, the ethical permissibility of TA-NRP is currently a highly debated issue. The recent statement published by the American College of Physicians (ACP) highlights the reasons for these debates. Critics' main concern is that TA-NRP violates the Dead Donor Rule. This paper presents an ethical analysis of the objections raised by the ACP against TA-NRP and argues that TA-NRP is not only morally permissible but also morally required where it is financially and technically feasible. To support this conclusion, the concepts of 'resuscitation,' 'intention,' 'irreversibility,' 'permanence,' 'impossibility,' and 'respect' in the context of TA-NRP are explored. Additionally, the ethical permissibility of this procedure is evaluated through the lenses of Utilitarianism, Kantianism, the core principles of bioethics, and the Doctrine of Double Effect. This ethical analysis demonstrates why the ACP's objection lacks a solid moral foundation and conflates moral and legal considerations. This paper also argues that extra measures are needed to ensure the moral permissibility of TA-NRP, emphasizing the importance of informed consent, additional brain blood flow and activity monitoring, and a contingency plan to abort the organ procurement process if a sign of morally relevant brain activity is detected.

胸腹常温区域灌注:是否道德?
胸腹恒温区域灌注(TA-NRP)是一种新的循环死亡后控制捐赠方法,与循环死亡后标准控制捐赠相比,似乎可以为器官移植等待名单上的患者提供更多更好的器官。尽管TA-NRP有诸多好处,但其伦理许可性目前仍是一个备受争议的问题。美国医师学会(ACP)最近发表的声明强调了这些争论的原因。批评者主要担心的是TA-NRP违反了“死亡捐赠者规则”。本文对ACP对TA-NRP提出的反对意见进行了伦理分析,并认为TA-NRP不仅在道德上是允许的,而且在经济和技术上可行的情况下在道德上也是必需的。为了支持这一结论,在TA-NRP的背景下,探讨了“复苏”、“意图”、“不可逆性”、“永久性”、“不可能性”和“尊重”等概念。此外,通过功利主义、康德主义、生命伦理学的核心原则和双重效应学说来评估这一过程的伦理许可性。这一伦理分析说明了为什么ACP的反对缺乏坚实的道德基础,并将道德和法律考虑混为一谈。本文还认为,需要采取额外的措施来确保TA-NRP在道德上的可接受性,强调知情同意的重要性,额外的脑血流和活动监测,以及在检测到与道德相关的大脑活动迹象时中止器官获取过程的应急计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信