Life After Death: Ethical Considerations of CPR in Brain-Dead Pediatric Organ Donors.

IF 6.4 2区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS
Jenny Kingsley,Miriam Piven Cotler,Brenda Barnum,Amy Shimada,Kailey Anber,Sabrina Derrington
{"title":"Life After Death: Ethical Considerations of CPR in Brain-Dead Pediatric Organ Donors.","authors":"Jenny Kingsley,Miriam Piven Cotler,Brenda Barnum,Amy Shimada,Kailey Anber,Sabrina Derrington","doi":"10.1542/peds.2025-072297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The ethical considerations surrounding organ-preserving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OP-CPR) in pediatric patients with brain death highlight tensions between preserving organ viability and respecting bodily integrity. This article explores these complexities through the case of JJ, a 12-year-old patient declared dead by neurological criteria, whose parents authorized organ donation. When JJ experienced cardiovascular collapse before organ procurement, the organ procurement organization's off-site director instructed hospital staff to perform OP-CPR, prompting ethical concerns from the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) team. This Ethics Rounds article presents 3 perspectives on OP-CPR: (1) An ethicist working for an organ procurement organization asserts that OP-CPR aligns with the family's intent and the principle of justice by increasing organ availability; (2) 2 pediatric intensive care attendings and bioethicists argue OP-CPR may not be ethically justified due to the low likelihood of achieving the primary goal, potential harm to the donor's dignity and personhood, and concerns about poor communication and lack of explicit permission; and (3) 3 nurses reveal challenges related to communication, moral distress, and institutional policies that pertain to the practice of OP-CPR. The article underscores the need for clear guidelines, improved collaboration between PICU teams and organ procurement organizations, and ethical frameworks that address both conscientious objection and conscientious commitment in the context of OP-CPR.","PeriodicalId":20028,"journal":{"name":"Pediatrics","volume":"66 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2025-072297","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The ethical considerations surrounding organ-preserving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OP-CPR) in pediatric patients with brain death highlight tensions between preserving organ viability and respecting bodily integrity. This article explores these complexities through the case of JJ, a 12-year-old patient declared dead by neurological criteria, whose parents authorized organ donation. When JJ experienced cardiovascular collapse before organ procurement, the organ procurement organization's off-site director instructed hospital staff to perform OP-CPR, prompting ethical concerns from the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) team. This Ethics Rounds article presents 3 perspectives on OP-CPR: (1) An ethicist working for an organ procurement organization asserts that OP-CPR aligns with the family's intent and the principle of justice by increasing organ availability; (2) 2 pediatric intensive care attendings and bioethicists argue OP-CPR may not be ethically justified due to the low likelihood of achieving the primary goal, potential harm to the donor's dignity and personhood, and concerns about poor communication and lack of explicit permission; and (3) 3 nurses reveal challenges related to communication, moral distress, and institutional policies that pertain to the practice of OP-CPR. The article underscores the need for clear guidelines, improved collaboration between PICU teams and organ procurement organizations, and ethical frameworks that address both conscientious objection and conscientious commitment in the context of OP-CPR.
死后的生命:脑死亡儿童器官捐献者心肺复苏术的伦理考虑。
在脑死亡儿童患者中,围绕器官保存心肺复苏(OP-CPR)的伦理考虑突出了保存器官活力和尊重身体完整性之间的紧张关系。本文通过JJ的案例探讨了这些复杂性。JJ是一名12岁的病人,根据神经学标准被宣布死亡,他的父母批准了器官捐赠。当JJ在器官采购前出现心血管衰竭时,器官采购组织的非现场主任指示医院工作人员进行OP-CPR,这引起了儿科重症监护病房(PICU)团队的伦理担忧。这篇伦理轮文章提出了关于OP-CPR的三个观点:(1)为器官采购组织工作的伦理学家断言,OP-CPR通过增加器官的可用性,符合家庭的意图和正义原则;(2)儿科重症监护主治医师和生物伦理学家认为,OP-CPR可能在伦理上不合理,因为它实现主要目标的可能性很低,可能会损害捐赠者的尊严和人格,并担心沟通不良和缺乏明确的许可;(3) 3名护士揭示了与OP-CPR实践相关的沟通、道德困境和制度政策方面的挑战。文章强调需要明确的指导方针,改善PICU团队和器官采购组织之间的合作,以及在OP-CPR背景下解决良心反对和良心承诺的道德框架。
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
Pediatrics
Pediatrics 医学-小儿科
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
5.00%
发文量
791
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: The Pediatrics® journal is the official flagship journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). It is widely cited in the field of pediatric medicine and is recognized as the leading journal in the field. The journal publishes original research and evidence-based articles, which provide authoritative information to help readers stay up-to-date with the latest developments in pediatric medicine. The content is peer-reviewed and undergoes rigorous evaluation to ensure its quality and reliability. Pediatrics also serves as a valuable resource for conducting new research studies and supporting education and training activities in the field of pediatrics. It aims to enhance the quality of pediatric outpatient and inpatient care by disseminating valuable knowledge and insights. As of 2023, Pediatrics has an impressive Journal Impact Factor (IF) Score of 8.0. The IF is a measure of a journal's influence and importance in the scientific community, with higher scores indicating a greater impact. This score reflects the significance and reach of the research published in Pediatrics, further establishing its prominence in the field of pediatric medicine.
×
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
小红书