Derivation of the uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death protocol for New York city.

Evidence from Europe suggests establishing out-of-hospital, uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (UDCDD) protocols has potential to substantially increase organ availability. The study objective was to derive an out-of-hospital UDCDD protocol that would be acceptable to New York City (NYC) residents. Participatory action research and the SEED-SCALE process for social change guided protocol development in NYC from July 2007 to September 2010. A coalition of government officials, subject experts and communities necessary to achieve support was formed. Authorized NY State and NYC government officials and their legal representatives collaboratively investigated how the program could be implemented under current law and regulations. Community stakeholders (secular and religious organizations) were engaged in town hall style meetings. Ethnographic data (meeting minutes, field notes, quantitative surveys) were collected and posted in a collaborative internet environment. Data were analyzed using an iterative coding scheme to discern themes, theoretical constructs and a summary narrative to guide protocol development. A clinically appropriate, ethically sound UDCDD protocol for out-of-hospital settings has been derived. This program is likely to be accepted by NYC residents since the protocol was derived through partnership with government officials, subject experts and community participants.

Caring for gravely ill children.

BACKGROUND: Much has been written about the care of the hopelessly ill adult, but there is little guidance for pediatric health care professionals in the management of children who are critically or terminally ill. METHODS: Through a 3-day meeting in Tarrytown, NY, attended by a group of pediatricians and others directly involved in these issues, a principled approach was developed for the treatment of, and health care decision-making for, children who are gravely ill. RESULTS: The group agreed that the needs and interests of the child must be the central focus of any treatment plan and that the child should be involved to as great extent possible, consistent with developmental maturity, in the decision-making process. Quality of future life should be viewed as being relevant in all decisions. Parents are believed to be the natural guardians of children and ought to have great latitude in making decisions for them. However, parental discretion is not absolute and professionals must maintain an independent obligation to protect the child's interests. CONCLUSIONS: Decision-making should be collaborative among patient, parents, and professionals. When conflict arises, consultation and ethics committees may assist in resolution. When cure or restoration of function is no longer possible, or reasonable, promotion of comfort becomes the primary goal of management. Optimal use of pain medication and compassionate concern for the physical, psychological, and spiritual well-being of the child and family should be the primary focus of the professionals caring for the dying child.

Mediation and managed care.

Managed care has not only intensified existing conflicts between patient and provider, it has, by its very nature, changed the shape and scope of the healthcare enterprise and introduced an entirely new set of disputes. The decision-making dynamics have been altered, and the cast of players has expanded. Traditionally, the therapeutic interaction took place between the physician and the patient although it occasionally included the patient's family. Whatever obligations existed, such as fidelity, confidentiality, and standard of care, they bound only those parties. Now, as the managed care organization has interposed itself between the patient and the physician, the dyad has become a triad. The power balance has shifted, and a new set of rights and responsibilities now flows between and among the players, each of whom has interests that may or may not coincide. This article argues that, because of its cost containment origins and orientation, managed care increases the likelihood that misunderstandings, disagreements and disputes will develop into full-blown conflicts. If managed care is to succeed financially and operate with integrity, it must develop techniques for managing the increasing conflicts that arise inevitably between and among the organizations, physicians, and patients. It is clear that the voice of the patient needs to be strengthened within the new complex decision-making, review, and appeal procedures. Mediation is the most appropriate method of dispute resolution for the managed care setting because it balances the disparities in power endemic to the bureaucratization of medicine and refocuses the interests of the various parties. Using bioethics consultation as a model for dispute mediation provides a set of principles and guideline tasks that can be applied effectively to managed care.

The doctor-proxy relationship: the neglected connection.

Advance directives have been lauded by scholars and supported by professional organizations, Congress, and the United States Supreme Court. Despite this encouragement, only a small number of capable patients execute living wills or appoint health care agents. When patients do empower proxies, doctors may be uncertain about the scope of their duties and obligations to these persons who, in theory, stand in the shoes of the patient. This article argues for a conscious focus on the ethical duties, emotional supports, and guidance owed by physicians to health care agents.

Individual advocacy as a governing principle.

Many case managers have two roles, that of gatekeeper and that of advocate, that often conflict. A true advocate adopts the client's perspective as the guide for activity. Many advocacy models exist, notably those of physician/patient and lawyer/client. The client's rights to an informed choice and to strict confidentiality are fundamental to these advocacy models and must be incorporated into any advocacy model of case management.