Organ Donation Organization Unethical

Published

I've been a critical care nurse for 6 years, I'm employed at a Southern California hospital that mandates all nurses taking care of poor prognosis patients to report them to one organ donation company. If a nurse fails to comply or report it to that "none profit" organization, even if the family does not want to donate organs, we are written up. Essentially, we are forced to call them regardless and this organization sends a nurse to persuade the next of kin in their vulnerable state. I mean within hours of being declared brain dead.

If the deceased did not make their wishes known about organ donation, nurses should not force another third party to come in and try to sales pitch them. I asked one of the family's what they said, and they said all the good things that come from it, i.e. a tragedy. I think the organ donation organization plays on their vulnerability.

I've done research on this particular organ donation company and the CEO makes well above $500,000. I've seen invoices from other hospitals the amount of money that goes into harvesting an organ and clearly have been disenchanted by the thought of donation. Additionally, this organization threw a thank you party for our unit because we had 6 organ "harvesting" in a month.

I feel there are HIPAA violations of reporting something to a third party without the family's knowledge and mandating it by the hospital. Note, we do not get permission from the family to divulging information about the decease.

Please, do yourself a favor and look up medical autopsy and body preparation at a mortuary. The body will end up the EXACT same way regardless of donation choice or not. It is critically important to gain knowledge of these sort of things.

Forgot this part in your quote.

Okay, so here is an example where someone attempts to provide facts and give a less than favorable response.

I have actually, 1-2 million, quick google is very taxing. But, let's not digress.

Bringing in a third party after the family already made their wishes known regarding organ donation and during the grieving process seems predatory and unethical.

To this person, who in no way attacked you.

It may not be the facility's policy requiring the reporting to the organ donation organization. My state, by law, requires all to be reported. And $500,000 for a CEO? That's actually pretty darn low compared to other CEO pay (did you put in the same amount of effort in seeing how much the CEO of your facility makes?), especially if it's CA. Bringing in the third party means talking organ donation is not the responsibility of the nurse caring for the patient and provides the separation needed between those caring for the patient before declaration of brain death and those looking for permission for organ harvest. Otherwise, there could be questions of conflict of interest and "did they really do everything they could or did they want the organs".

I still stand by what I said, educating oneself is the biggest favor anybody can do for themselves. The only way healthcare can be improved is through knowledge and understanding of complex topics, such as this.

My narrative is just that. Accept only facts, toss aside all opinions. But if people are going to provide those facts, even if they don't align with an opinion, its important to accept them and treat people kindly. Even if you agree with certain peoples opinion, you should treat even the ones you don't agree with as valid to those people.

Also I'm sorry, but you asked me to provide examples and I was happy to do so.

You only posted my REPLIES to other's rude comments towards me. I don't know about you, but, I like answering people questions when they ask. Note, the CEO pay question. Interesting, no?
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Forgot this part in your quote.

Also I'm sorry, but you asked me to provide examples and I was happy to do so.

You also stated, facts are facts, I'm pointing out, your facts are not factual since they're impartial. Given no facts, no citation, nothing.

Spidey has even give the articles from reputable sites regarding the unethical practices. Does it matter to you? No.

Impartiality, are opinions. I've agreed with people's opinion that are contrary to mine. You chose to ignore. Why? Doesn't fit your narrative. Again, another example of YOUR impartiality. Facts do trump impartiality.

You've given nothing but, opinions and judging my character. None of which really pertains to the topic at hand.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Even if you agree with certain peoples opinion, you should treat even the ones you don't agree with as valid to those people.

Also I'm sorry, but you asked me to provide examples and I was happy to do so.

Facts, would be including the original rude comments by posters directed at me. So, let's get our facts straight. I'm never outright rude, but, if you're going to be rude to me, I will be rude to you. I've said this before.

Since you ONLY chose to post my replies to other's very RUDE comments directed at me, there's obvious prejudices in your case.

I've agreed with people's opinion that are contrary to mine. You chose to ignore. Why? Doesn't fit your narrative. Again, another example of YOUR impartiality. Facts do trump impartiality.

did you put in the same amount of effort in seeing how much the CEO of your facility makes?

I was addressing this question. I didn't think answering a question was rude. I think that's your impartial opinion.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
You also stated, facts are facts, I'm pointing out, your facts are not factual since they're impartial. Given no facts, no citation, nothing.

Spidey has even give the articles from reputable sites regarding the unethical practices. Does it matter to you? No.

Impartiality, are opinions. I've agreed with people's opinion that are contrary to mine. You chose to ignore. Why? Doesn't fit your narrative. Again, another example of YOUR impartiality. Facts do trump impartiality.

You've given nothing but, opinions and judging my character. None of which really pertains to the topic at hand.

Going off the deep end here, but the fact that you attacked someone, as listed in my last post, was indeed cited, with the quote by you in response to their information. They said CA law requires they be contacted. Thats a fact they provided.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Going off the deep end here, but the fact that you attacked someone, as listed in my last post, was indeed cited, with the quote by you in response to their information. They said CA law requires they be contacted. Thats a fact they provided.

Answering someone's question is not attacking them. No where in your quote I was calling name and demeaning. You're impartial and don't agree with me that's why you're resorting to judging my character. You don't even like this topic being discussed, clearly, why are you here?

What I'm failing to see is why individual nurses opinions on organ donation matter. The facts are solid, it saves lives. Does an opinion save lives?

I've agreed with people's opinion that are contrary to mine. You chose to ignore. Why? Doesn't fit your narrative. Again, another example of YOUR impartiality. Facts do trump impartiality.

Seems to me, you can't accept my opinion. This really, has nothing to do with the question on hand. Although you may not want to discuss people's thoughts and opinions on the matter, many other's do, including me.

It is the law to in California to contact organ procurement organization. I wasn't questioning that.

I wanted to discuss and have discussed, since the first page, bringing in a third party after the family already made their wishes known regarding organ donation and during the grieving process seems predatory and unethical.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I wanted to discuss and have discussed, since the first page, bringing in a third party after the family already made their wishes known regarding organ donation and during the grieving process seems predatory and unethical

Wish people would stay on this topic. Everyone has different experiences and just because you may not have had that experience, it does not mean others have not. That being said, what is the appropriate answer? For the sake of discussion, let's say you have a healthy 24 year old that does not have anything showing they wish to be an organ donor. In my state this can be designated on the drivers license. The family says they never expressed a wish to be an organ donor. For whatever reason (pick one, religious, past experience, just don't want to) the family states they don't want their family member to donate organs. Per hospital protocol, the phone call is made that there could be a possibility for viable organs. That conversation happens and the family says no. What is the accepted practice thereafter? No more asking, asking one more time, sending in another person. I am wondering if this varies by state, by institution, etc.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Wish people would stay on this topic. Everyone has different experiences and just because you may not have had that experience, it does not mean others have not. That being said, what is the appropriate answer? For the sake of discussion, let's say you have a healthy 24 year old that does not have anything showing they wish to be an organ donor. In my state this can be designated on the drivers license. The family says they never expressed a wish to be an organ donor. For whatever reason (pick one, religious, past experience, just don't want to) the family states they don't want their family member to donate organs. Per hospital protocol, the phone call is made that there could be a possibility for viable organs. That conversation happens and the family says no. What is the accepted practice thereafter? No more asking, asking one more time, sending in another person. I am wondering if this varies by state, by institution, etc.

This is just my opinion, ethically, it would be wrong to not accept the family's initial decision and second.

I really think during people's annual physical exams or even health insurance companies should mandate answering the question like in a packet, provide numbers to these organ procurement org. for further questions/information.

I'm sure people's wishes to donate or not to, will be respected. No ethical committees would need to address the topic and no need to burden the family during the grieving process. Everything is already set.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Seems to me, you can't accept my opinion. This really, has nothing to do with the question on hand.

Your opinion is why the discussion is occurring... And I don't have to accept your opinion because its an opinion.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Your opinion is why the discussion is occurring... And I don't have to accept your opinion because its an opinion.

I didn't say you have to accept my opinion, you can't even debate about it because it upsets you so much. You resort to judging my character, instead.

I wanted to discuss and have discussed, since the first page, bringing in a third party after the family already made their wishes known regarding organ donation and during the grieving process seems predatory and unethical.

You don't even like this topic being discussed, why are you here?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Family members have their reasons for refusing organ donation, if their reasons do not require more education, the reasons need to be respected. If for example an immigrant family originates from a country that has a known history of killing prisoners for their organs, the family may mistrust medical personal involved in the organ trade. If these families are repeatedly approached by an organ donor rep about agreeing to donate a deceased family members organs, their distrust of medical personal will likely increase.

Who should get to decide this? There could be 100 reasons and none of them should matter. I have coworkers who wonder why I won't donate organs and its none of their business. It is NOT our job as HCP's to educate someone into doing what we want. There was a dialysis patient who did not want a kidney from a non white donor. That's his choice and it is not anyone's place to educate him into feeling differently. A patients wishes are personal and it is not their job to donate their body parts to possibly save someone else.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I think, just the persuasiveness and persistence of some of the representatives from these organizations are why I'm questioning the ethics behind it all.

I've had families say no outright upon meeting with representatives and then, after further meetings with them, the family changes their mind. Like, why should there be more meetings when they already said no?

Being coaxed to donate organs bothers me even if it is a utilitarian.

.

Why do the families allow themselves to be harangued more than once?

For the poster who said it's about kids and grandkids, and not about the actual donors or the ones giving consent, I must say that it's really about all of these people.

It's not an easy topic.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Boo hoo.

Who cares about someone's feelings when LIVES are on the line? The pursuit of organ donation should be aggressive and persistent. We owe that much to those who are dying and to the families to know what their feelings may cost.

Organ donation is serious and should be treated as such, their tears will dry but dead is forever. Maybe their loved one's death will mean that others may live.

Feelings v. Life

Boo Hoo Hoo

We each have our own view. Families should not be harassed. And life isn't always desirable. Some religions, perhaps, are anti-donation. I'm not sure about that, I'm just wondering.

I do wish a fingernail could save a newborn, though.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion