| Indian Journal of Medical Ethics | ||||||
![]() Home Current Issue Past Issues Support About IJME Apr-Jun2001-9(2) |
Paying for organs: a shifting
discourse When successful organ transplantation was
established in the 1980s, international ethical consensus was against a trade in
human organs from living or dead persons. By 1989, 21 countries had laws against
paying for organs. The World Health Organization and international medical
associations on transplantation had declarations on the subject. However, a massive organ shortage in the US
encouraged rethinking of these objections. In 1996, a speaker at the meeting of
the US Department of Health and Human Services Division of Transplantation urged
a reconsideration of the 'ethical objections and legal impediments to financial
incentives for organ donation'. Another offered a panel presentation on a
futures market in cadaver organs. Persons and organisations that once condemned
mixing money with organ donation now suggest more aggressive moves: the Council
on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association proposed a
futures market in cadaver organs, and members of the International Forum for
Transplant Ethics recommended lifting the ban on kidney sales from living donors
pending better justifications for prohibiting such transactions. In 1999 the US state of Pennsylvania considered a
plan to pay a 'stipend' to organ donors' families to defray funeral costs. The
programme would be monitored to see if it increased donations. While some called
the Pennsylvania plan 'very dangerous', and 'a step away from altruism toward
commerce...', the National Kidney Foundation felt it should be tested: "If a
small financial incentive increases the number of organs available to save
lives, good will have been accomplished." A strong rejection of uncompensated donation is
being replaced by a debate on the use of financial rewards. How did this ethical shift come about?
The author identifies various techniques used to
shape the debate on financial compensation for donors. "These strategies tell us
a great deal about the role of the medical profession in shaping ethical debates
at the high technology end of medicine."
The author could have reflected on two related
issues: what are 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' ways of changing public policy?
Second, why do other options to increase organ availability not get discussed?
Joralemon D: Shifting ethics: debating the
incentive question in organ transplantation. J Med Ethics 2001;
27:30-35 Black is white, and day is night An illustration of how things get done in India is given in this column by
Dr M K Mani who quotes, without comment, the minutes of the authorisation
committee which gives permission for non-related transplants. The first set of
minutes refuses permission because the donor is 'not motivated, too young,
unmarried and not aware of the complications.' The second set of minutes, less
than three weeks later, approves the same donor for the same recipient --
stating that both parties have apologised for giving wrong information about the
donor's age. Mani MK: Letter from Chennai. Natl Med J India 2000; 13:
271-3. A one in 10 chance of an 'adverse event' This retrospective review of 1,014 medical and nursing records at two acute
hospitals in London found that 10.8 % of patients experienced an adverse event,
with an overall rate of adverse events of 11.7% when multiple adverse events
were included. About half of these events were judged preventable with ordinary
standards of care. A third of adverse events led to moderate or greater
disability or death. While some adverse events are serious and are traumatic for
both staff and patients, others are frequent, minor events that go unnoticed in
routine clinical care and yet together have massive economic consequences.
Vincent C et al: Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary
retrospective record review. BMJ 2000; 321: 890-892. Drug companies and doctors -1 This description of the physician-pharmaceutical industry relationship and
its impact on physicians' knowledge, attitudes and behaviour is based on
analysing the results of internet searches and through interviews with key
informants. The author concludes that the doctor-pharmaceutical representative
relationship is an accepted one, which begins in medical school and is
maintained through regular meetings. These meetings influence the prescribing
practices of physicians, and get them to add the company's drugs to the
hospital formulary. "Attending sponsored CME events and accepting funding for
travel or lodging for educational symposia were associated with increased
prescription rates of the sponsor's medication. Attending presentations given by
pharmaceutical representative speakers was also associated with irrational
prescribing." The author concludes: "The present extent of physician-industry
interactions appears to affect prescribing and professional behaviour and should
be further addressed at the level of policy and education." Surely this is an
even more severe problem in India. Wazana A: Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever
just a gift? JAMA 2000;283:373-380. Drug companies and doctors -2 This essay refers to various studies documenting the
physician-pharmaceutical industry nexus, and its influence on prescribing
behaviour as well as public perceptions of the sponsor's drugs. The industry
directs medical research, it exerts pressure on medical journals to prevent the
publication of unfavourable results, and it uses the internet to provide
mis-information. What we need is documentation of such practices in the Indian
context. Anand AC: The pharmaceutical industry: our 'silent partner' in the
practice of medicine. Natl Med J India 2000; 13: 319-21. How managed care manages Do health plans affect the kind of care their subscribers get? This US
study compared compared the use of coronary angiography after acute myocardial
infarction among Medicare beneficiaries who had traditional fee-for-service
coverage with the use among Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in managed care
plans, studying a total of more than 50,000 people, adjusting for differences in
patients' demographic and clinical characteristics for hospitals'
characteristics. Care was evaluated according to guidelines proposed by the
American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association. Among the 44
percent of patients in both groups who had class I indications (for which
angiography is useful and effective), more fee-for-service beneficiaries than
managed-care enrollees underwent angiography. Interestingly, rates of use among
patients with class I indications are fairly low in both groups, suggesting that
there is room for improving the care of elderly patients with myocardial
infarction. Guadagnoli E et al.: Appropriateness of coronary angiography after
myocardial infarction among Medicare beneficiaries: managed care versus fee for
service N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 1460-6. Giving parents prenatal test results A prenatal test result showing chromosomal abnormalities leaves women and
their partners with an agonising decision on whether or not to continue the
pregnancy. How can healthcare providers help them? There is little
research on pre-test counselling, the communication of abnormal results, their
impact on parents' decision making, or the long-term outcomes of such decisions.
Such a situation poses even more challenges to Indian health care providers.
This editorial writer comments on a UK-based pilot study on how parents are told
that the foetus has a sex chromosome abnormality. The findings: little or
inaccurate information is provided; healthcare providers know little about such
abnormalities; and the literature is often out of date and conflicting. However,
even accurate information may not tell one how a particular child will be
affected. Reproductive decisions are complex, influenced by women's values and
beliefs and their hopes for the future baby, attitudes toward abortion, desires
for biological children, religious beliefs, attitudes toward disability and
human variation, social norms about prenatal testing outcomes, practical issues
such as money and social support. Healthcare providers must understand what the
information means to women and their partners, to enable decision making. If
they cannot, they must refer patients to someone who can help. Women learning of
an abnormal prenatal diagnosis deserve accurate information and healthcare
providers who convey respect, honesty and compassion, not ill-informed
suggestions about whether or not to continue the pregnancy. Biesecker B: Prenatal diagnoses of sex chromosome conditions:
Parents need more than just accurate information. Editorial BMJ
2001;322:441-442. Is there an 'Asian bioethics'? Is today's bioethics transplanting Western concepts to Asia? Can Asians
develop a concept of bioethics based on their traditional cultures? This article
argues that Asian bioethicists must develop a bioethics responding to their own
cultural contexts. If western principles are adopted, then they must be
re-interpreted and even modified, if necessary, in light of Asian beliefs. Asian
interest in medical ethics dates back centuries before the West. In the first
century AD the Caraka Samhita laid down standards of behaviour for physicians:
they should endeavour to relieve patients, should not desert or injure them and
should never cause another's death; they should be committed to helping their
patients, but should not to tell patients of their terminal illness. The Susruta
Samhita refers to the atharvan, a medicine man in a domestic setting, who helped
alleviate personal and family crises. Western biomedical ethics literature has identified autonomy,
non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice as the four basic principles of
medical ethics. These principles will have different applications - especially
with the principles of autonomy and justice - in cultural settings where the
family or community carry a greater weight than the individual does. To give a concrete example, the rule of informed consent extends to
consulting the patient's family before an action is taken. By the same token,
justice cannot be defined as straightforward fairness. A person's responsibility
to look after his own health should also be considered. Cheng-tek T, Seng Lin C: Developing a culturally relevant bioethics for
Asian people. J Med Ethics 2001; 27:51-54. |
|||||
|
| ||||||