Let's call it "organ support," not life support

Here.I.Stand, BSN, RN · Jan 4, 2014

I like it! I've found myself using the word "life support" (even thinking it in my head) and then right away thinking "Wait, we're not supporting life...we're supporting oxygenation and organ perfusion."

Here.I.Stand, BSN, RN · Jan 4, 2014

I also agree with the idea, although I can see the whole thing turning into a religious debate.

How come? My first thought as a pro-life Christian was that the mechanical ventilation, pressors, blood transfusions etc. that are used after the declaration of brain death can't be accurately called life support b/c the person is already dead.

ThePrincessBride, MSN, RN, NP · Jan 4, 2014

I think out of respect for human beings, we shouldn't refer to people as nothing but sacks of organs("organ support") as it is completely dehumanizing and not everyone has the same definition of life as the medical world. Leave the non-holistic coldness to the jerk surgeons.

mluvsgnc · Jan 4, 2014

I'm on board with terming it "organ support," too. But I can see the stickiness when it comes to defining "life" per se, which may be confused with being "alive." I'm sure there are many debates on it!

ainePsyMA · Jan 4, 2014

I absolutely agree (from a Psych standpoint) that terminology used should be changed when end of life has been reached and decisions being made by emotional family members need to be adjusted from "preserving life" when there is none to preserve to "letting go with dignity"...the term "life support" has no place in the care of a legally brain dead patient. Nor does the family need to hear terms such as "life support" when life is technically gone from a truly brain dead body.

SubSippi · Jan 4, 2014

How come? My first thought as a pro-life Christian was that the mechanical ventilation pressors, blood transfusions etc. that are used after the declaration of brain death can't be accurately called life support b/c the person is already dead.[/quote']
I was referring more to the general public possibly turning it into a religious debate, not health care workers. If the term "organ support" actually started being used in practice, I wouldn't be surprised if some religious people/groups were displeased.

edmia, BSN, RN · Jan 4, 2014

Yes! The power of words is immense. Organ support is more accurate and removes the idea of "life", which in this case in particular, is just not true.

Another one I'd like to see change is Do Not Resuscitate to Allow Natural Death -- much more realistic terms.

plumbtrician · Jan 4, 2014

Call it what you want, but this case is going to be examined to death (excuse the pun) by the ethicists.

Here.I.Stand, BSN, RN · Jan 4, 2014

I was referring more to the general public possibly turning it into a religious debate, not health care workers. If the term "organ support" actually started being used in practice, I wouldn't be surprised if some religious people/groups were displeased.

Gotcha--thanks for clarifying! From what I've seen, there is confusion among the general public what "brain death" is. A few months back a lady from my church asked in a discussion, "Okay, so brain death is death legally, but I wonder if they are dead in God's eyes?" A very brief explanation of what we mean by "brain death," opposed to someone in a PVS or "coma," and she understood.

I just think in the larger issue over confusion about someone being "brain dead" but being warm and having a heartbeat, applying the term "life support" to the living would help for clarity's sake. You could very well be right about it being turned into a pro-life issue, but that would be out of the misconception that this person is still alive.

Just my late-night thoughts.

ArtClassRN, ADN, RN · Jan 4, 2014

This is an idea that originated in a legal nursing group discussion about the brain-dead teen at Children's in Oakland. While I completely understand the family's pain and that a lot of it is due to misunderstandings (e.g., the mother is reported to have said, "She's not dead, her heart is still beating and she breathes,"), I think the language we use in these situations contributes to this, and would like to spread the idea that better language would be more descriptive.

What would it be like if the health care people involved in this didn't say that a brain-dead person was on "life support," but instead called it "organ support"? In these cases, the life is over.

After following the story you mention, I am utterly convinced that there is absolutely NO vocabulary, wording or taxonomy change that would improve the way this family is dealing with this situation.

In light of that, I see no reason to change anything.

SubSippi · Jan 4, 2014

I think it might make a difference. For someone who is uneducated on the subject, I could see how it could be more difficult to withdraw measures termed as "life support," versus the same measures termed as "organ support." You can tell someone over and over again what all these words mean, but just having the word "life" thrown in might make it seem more as though the withdrawal of "life support" is what has caused their loved one to die, not whatever caused them to get put on the ventilator, etc.

I also like the PP's idea to changing DNR to "allow natural death." People seem to think that a code involves us keeping a person alive who is about to die. They don't understand that during a code, we are actually trying to make someone who has already died come back to life…or at least that's how I see it.

Anyway, semantics can make a huge difference.

smartnurse1982 · Jan 4, 2014

Confusion would set in.I do have a question.Why are brain dead pts given Anesthesia before organ donation if they are dead and can't feel anything?Please,don't slam me. Its a genuine question.