Apnea Testing Consent: A Pressing Ethical and Legal Issue
A contentious issue in medical ethics and law is the requirement of consent before apnea testing in the diagnosis of death by neurologic criteria (DNC). While some states like Montana and Kansas mandate it, Virginia and Nevada do not. A recent journal article, authored by an unknown collaborator with Ivor Berkowitz, delves into this topic, arguing for a consent requirement.
The authors explore the legal and ethical bases for requiring consent, focusing on two major objections. Firstly, they address the justice-based objection that scarce resources should be allocated fairly. The authors argue that consent ensures individuals' autonomy, outweighing potential resource allocation concerns.
Secondly, they tackle the social utility objection, which posits that halting apnea tests would reduce organ donors. The authors counter that this argument overlooks individual rights and that informed consent does not necessarily halt the DNC process. They defend their stance by appealing to principles of informed consent, battery, and the right to refuse medical treatment. The unsettled and inconsistent US laws regarding consent for apnea testing further underscore the need for clear ethical guidelines.
The requirement of consent before apnea testing in DNC diagnosis is a pressing ethical and legal issue. The authors' argument, based on principles of autonomy and individual rights, challenges the status quo and calls for a consistent legal framework. Demanding consent can halt the DNC process, but the authors argue that this is a necessary step to uphold ethical and legal principles.
Read also:
- EU Faces Demand from Protesters to Halts Incineration of American-Owned Birth Control Products
- MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome): A Comprehensive Overview and Treatment Guide
- Strategies to Maintain Optimal Eye Health Throughout Aging Process
- Hearings on the HHS Budget Detail a Fresh Approach for Public Healthcare Policies
