Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2007 Sep 12:2:19.
doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-2-19.

The United States Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (2006): new challenges to balancing patient rights and physician responsibilities

Affiliations
Editorial

The United States Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (2006): new challenges to balancing patient rights and physician responsibilities

Joseph L Verheijde et al. Philos Ethics Humanit Med. .

Abstract

Advance health care directives and informed consent remain the cornerstones of patients' right to self-determination regarding medical care and preferences at the end-of-life. However, the effectiveness and clinical applicability of advance health care directives to decision-making on the use of life support systems at the end-of-life is questionable. The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) has been revised in 2006 to permit the use of life support systems at or near death for the purpose of maximizing procurement opportunities of organs medically suitable for transplantation. Some states have enacted the Revised UAGA (2006) and a few of those have included amendments while attempting to preserve the uniformity of the revised Act. Other states have introduced the Revised UAGA (2006) for legislation and remaining states are likely to follow soon. The Revised UAGA (2006) poses challenges to the Patient Self Determination Act (PSDA) embodied in advance health care directives and individual expression about the use of life support systems at the end-of-life. The challenges are predicated on the UAGA revising the default choice to presumption of donation intent and the use of life support systems to ensure medical suitability of organs for transplantation. The default choice trumps the expressed intent in an individual's advance health care directive to withhold and/or withdraw life support systems at the end-of-life. The Revised UAGA (2006) overrides advance directives on utilitarian grounds, which is a serious ethical challenge to society. The subtle progression of the Revised UAGA (2006) towards the presumption about how to dispose of one's organs at death can pave the way for an affirmative "duty to donate". There are at least two steps required to resolve these challenges. First, physicians and hospitals must fulfill their responsibilities to educate patients on the new legislations and document their preferences about the use of life support systems for organ donation at the end-of-life. Second, a broad based societal discussion must be initiated to decide if the Revised UAGA (2006) infringes on the PSDA and the individual's right of autonomy. The discussion should also address other ethical concerns raised by the Revised UAGA (2006), including the moral stance on 1) the interpretation of the refusal of life support systems as not applicable to organ donation and 2) the disregarding of the diversity of cultural beliefs about end-of-life in a pluralistic society.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) 2006, advance health care directives (AD) and use of life support systems at the end-of-life. The UAGA (2006) Section 14(c) defaults a patient already on life support systems to the presumption of intent for organ donation (i.e. potential donor) and mandatory notification of organ procurement organization for evaluation. Life support systems cannot be withdrawn in a potential donor until organ procurement organization has completed the evaluation of medical suitability of organs for transplantation. If the organ procurement organization has determined that a potential donor has organs medically suitable for transplantation, the potential donor becomes a prospective donor. For a prospective donor, life support systems cannot be withheld or withdrawn. For a prospective donor, section 21(b) requires the attending physician to resolve the conflict between intent in advance health care directives to withhold and/or withdraw life support systems at the end-of-life verus their use for organ donation purpose. Section 9(a) expands the list of persons who can consult, on behalf of a prospective donor, with the attending physician to resolve the aforementioned conflict and provide donation consent (or refusal). Document of gift or donation consent permits the use of life support systems and organ procurement protocols on donors. If a potential donor has medically unsuitable organs, refusal of gift or contrary intent declaration to instruct the withholding and/or withdrawing of life support systems for organ donation purpose, life support systems can be withdrawn and end-of-life care is provided as expressed in advance health care directives.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The enactment status of the United States Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) 2006 as of September 2007. The Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) 2006 is enacted in many states and a few of those have included amendments (dark shade areas). Other states have introduced the Revised UAGA (2006) for legislation (light shade areas). The data source is the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Patient Self-Determination Act (1991) http://www.fha.org/acrobat/Patient%20Self%20Determination%20Act%201990.pdf
    1. Code of Federal Regulations Title 42--Public Health-Chapter IV--Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 42CFR489.100. Subpart I--Advance Directives http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05dec20031700/edocket.access.gpo...
    1. Whetstine LM. Advanced directives and treatment decisions in the intensive care unit. Crit Care. 2007;11:150. doi: 10.1186/cc5971. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Teno J, Lynn J, Wenger N, Phillips RS, Murphy DP, Connors AFJ, Desbiens N, Fulkerson W, Bellamy P, Knaus WA, Support Investigators Advance Directives for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: Effectiveness with the Patient Self-Determination Act and the SUPPORT Intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45:500–507. - PubMed
    1. Perkins HS. Controlling Death: The False Promise of Advance Directives. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007;147:51–57. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms