Ari R Joffe1, Roisin Byrne, Natalie R Anton, Allan R deCaen. 1. Department of Pediatrics, 3A3 Stollery Children's Hospital, University of Alberta, 8440 112 Street, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2B7, Canada. ajoffe@cha.ab.ca
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if university students consider the donation after cardiac death donor as dead. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: University students. PARTICIPANTS: Medical (n = 142) and nursing (n = 76) students in a medical ethics class and philosophy students (n = 102). INTERVENTION: Survey during class time with four patient scenarios in which a decision was made to donate organs after 5 min of absent circulation. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Half the surveys had brief background information, and half had more detailed background information. Responses between groups were compared using the Chi-square statistic. The response rate of 320 students was 100%. In each scenario, 42-51% of those given detailed information strongly agree or agree that the patient is 'definitely dead', versus 55-58% given brief information (ns). When asked in what state this patient is, 26-30% given detailed information chose "dead," versus 41-45% given brief information (P < 0.025). Thirty-six to 39% given detailed information strongly agree or agree that the physician was truthful informing the family that at 5 min of absent circulation the patient is definitely dead, versus 48-52% given brief information (P < 0.01). On at least one of the scenarios, 65% of those given detailed information, and 50% of those given brief information responded uncertain, disagree, or strongly disagree that the patient is definitely dead (P < 0.01). Medical students were significantly less likely to agree that the patients in the scenarios were "dead," or that the physicians were being truthful in describing the patients as dead. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents were not confident that a donation after cardiac death donor was actually dead.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if university students consider the donation after cardiac death donor as dead. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: University students. PARTICIPANTS: Medical (n = 142) and nursing (n = 76) students in a medical ethics class and philosophy students (n = 102). INTERVENTION: Survey during class time with four patient scenarios in which a decision was made to donate organs after 5 min of absent circulation. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Half the surveys had brief background information, and half had more detailed background information. Responses between groups were compared using the Chi-square statistic. The response rate of 320 students was 100%. In each scenario, 42-51% of those given detailed information strongly agree or agree that the patient is 'definitely dead', versus 55-58% given brief information (ns). When asked in what state this patient is, 26-30% given detailed information chose "dead," versus 41-45% given brief information (P < 0.025). Thirty-six to 39% given detailed information strongly agree or agree that the physician was truthful informing the family that at 5 min of absent circulation the patient is definitely dead, versus 48-52% given brief information (P < 0.01). On at least one of the scenarios, 65% of those given detailed information, and 50% of those given brief information responded uncertain, disagree, or strongly disagree that the patient is definitely dead (P < 0.01). Medical students were significantly less likely to agree that the patients in the scenarios were "dead," or that the physicians were being truthful in describing the patients as dead. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents were not confident that a donation after cardiac death donor was actually dead.
Authors: J L Bernat; A M D'Alessandro; F K Port; T P Bleck; S O Heard; J Medina; S H Rosenbaum; M A Devita; R S Gaston; R M Merion; M L Barr; W H Marks; H Nathan; K O'connor; D L Rudow; A B Leichtman; P Schwab; N L Ascher; R A Metzger; V Mc Bride; W Graham; D Wagner; J Warren; F L Delmonico Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: M Susan Mandell; Stacy Zamudio; Debbie Seem; Lin J McGaw; Geri Wood; Patricia Liehr; Angela Ethier; Anthony M D'Alessandro Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Ari R Joffe; Joe Carcillo; Natalie Anton; Allan deCaen; Yong Y Han; Michael J Bell; Frank A Maffei; John Sullivan; James Thomas; Gonzalo Garcia-Guerra Journal: Philos Ethics Humanit Med Date: 2011-12-29 Impact factor: 2.464
Authors: George Skowronski; Anil Ramnani; Dianne Walton-Sonda; Cynthia Forlini; Michael J O'Leary; Lisa O'Reilly; Linda Sheahan; Cameron Stewart; Ian Kerridge Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2021-12-18 Impact factor: 2.652