CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 125Organ Donation and TransplantationPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Attitudes toward Death Criteria and Organ Donation among Healthcare Personnel and the General Public

DuBois, James M., Anderson, Emily E.·2006·Progress in Transplantation
DOI 10.1177/152692480601600113
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: To examine attitudes toward death criteria and their relation to attitudes and behaviors regarding organ donation. Data Sources: This article reviews empirical studies on the attitudes of healthcare personnel and the general public regarding death criteria and organ donation. Study Selection and Data Extraction: The review was restricted to studies that had as a primary focus attitudes toward 1 or more of the following 3 specific criteria for determining death: (1) brain death, the irreversible loss of all functions of the entire brain; (2) higher brain death, the loss of cerebral cortex function alone; and (3) the circulatory-respiratory criteria commonly used in donation after cardiac death. Data Synthesis: Studies consistently show that the general public and some medical personnel are inadequately familiar with the legal and medical status of brain death; attitudes toward the dead donor rule are strong predictors of willingness to donate organs using controversial criteria; concerns about donation after cardiac death surround the withdrawal of life support more than the actual death criteria used; and concerns about death criteria correlate with less favorable attitudes toward organ donation. Conclusions: Both general and ethical education may serve to guide policy and facilitate family member requests and informed consent dialogues. Furthermore, helping families to understand and accept not only medical and legal criteria for determining death, but also ethical criteria for withdrawing life support may help them be more comfortable with their decisions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/152692480601600113

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Fost N, 1999, The Definition of Death: Contemporary Controversies.
  2. Gallup Organization I, 1993, The American Public's Attitudes Toward Organ Donation and Transplantation.
  3. Walker J, 1990, Can Med Assoc J., 142, 1383
  4. Youngner S, 1996, Organ Transplantation. Meanings and Realities., 32
  5. Ettner B, 1988, Dial Transplant., 17, 72
  6. DuBois JM, 2000, Festschrift: 5 Jahre Ludwig Bolzmann Institut fuer Medizinoekonomie in Anasthesie und Intensivmedizin.
  7. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1981, Defining death: Medical, legal, and ethical issues in the determination of death.
  8. Veatch R, 1975, J Thanatol., 3, 13
  9. Englehardt HJ, 1975, Am Rev Respir Dis., 112, 587
  10. Green M, 1980, Philos Public Aff., 9, 105
  11. Institute of Medicine, 1997, Non—Heart-beating Organ Transplantation: Medical and Ethical Issues in Procurement.
  12. University of Wisconson Hospital and Clinics Organ Procurement Organization, 2003, Annual Report 2003.
  13. Menikoff J, 2002, Issues Law Med., 18, 3
  14. Veatch R, 2001, Transplantation Ethics.
  15. Caplan A, 1989, Transplant Proc., 21, 3381

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
DuBois, J. M., & Anderson, E. E.
Affiliations
Saint Louis University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Progress in Transplantation
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2006-03
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
65-73
ISSN
  • 0905-9199 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-9248
  • 2164-6708
DOI
10.1177/152692480601600113
OpenAlex
W2101688585
Cited by
125
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Progress in Transplantation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Organ Donation and Transplantation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Organ Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Keywords
organ donation, brain death, donation after circulatory death, dead donor rule, withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, public attitudes, informed consent, family decision-making, ethics education
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Death, Attitude to Health, Brain Death, Decision Making, Family, Health Services Needs and Demand, Heart Arrest, Humans, Informed Consent, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Tissue and Organ Procurement, Professional-Family Relations, Public Opinion, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States, Professional Role, Withholding Treatment, Trust

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review