Cantú-Quintanilla G, Madrigal-Bustamante JA, Palencia-Sierra J, Barragán-Sánchez A

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 96-103
PDF size: 202.99 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Actually there is not a big difference between express and assumed donation requiring family consent. In this country, this has not had good results, as shown by the deceased donor rate. Disregarding family –the place of reunion of its members– for the sake of donation is assumed as a violence against home intimacy. How can progress be attained in donation culture? Material and methods: A survey was applied in a «citizen involvement exercise» of a government. It was organized by CENATRA with organ providing hospitals in Mexico City, and with NGOs actively collaborating with donation campaigns. The 12-question inquiry was on conditions for donation, the need to increase donation rate, scarcity of donation organs, how to disseminate donation culture, as well as associated socio-demographic data. Results: 26 filled-out questionnaires were received in Mexico City, with an average age of 35 years. 96-100% of respondents understand the definition of cerebral death, know about importance of donation, agree that donation can improve receiver’s quality of life, are willing to donate and they want to receive an organ in the case of personal or family need. However, only 73% trusts organ allocation to those needing them most, and only 88% would like their relatives and loved persons to be donors. Discussion: Implementation of a new type of donor is suggested, the «assured donor», who would be a person having signed a declaration with following principles: 1. I Invite my relatives, friends and acquaintances to donate their organs and tissues. 2. My life is coherent with my thought, and this is why I leave this written declaration. 3. This is why I request that, upon my death, my family is informed about donation of my organs and tissues for transplantation (thus I spare them the anguish of having to decide in that last moment). 4. With all my affect and respect due to my relatives and to myself.

REFERENCES

1. Rivera-Durón E, Portillo-García F, Tenango-Soriano V, González-Moreno F, Vázquez-Salinas C. Negativa familiar en un proceso de donación. Arch Neurocien (Mex). 2014; 19 (2): 83-87.

2. Cornejo-Contreras G, Barril MC, Heredia JF. Entrega de información y voluntariedad en el consentimiento presunto de la ley de donación de órganos en Chile. Revista ANACEM (Chile). 2013; 7 (1): 49-53.

3. Pérez-Tamayo R. La ley, la ética médica y los trasplantes. Rev Invest Clin. 2005; 57 (2): 170-176.

4. Rithalia A, McDaid C, Suekarran S, Norman G, Myers L, Sowden A. A systematic review of presumed consent systems for deceased organ donation. Health Technol Assess. 2009; 13 (26): iii, ix-xi, 1-95.

5. Álvarez MH. Consentimiento presunto y respuesta requerida como alternativas a la escasez de donantes: un análisis ético. Rev Chil Cir. 2007; 59 (3): 244-249.

6. Reyes-Acevedo R. En donación de órganos cadavéricos para trasplante: ¿Es el consentimiento tácito más eficiente que el consentimiento informado? Rev Invest Clin. 2000; 52 (5): 589-590.

7. Velásquez-Macías RF. Donación y trasplante, una realidad en México. Rev Mex Urol. 2005; 65 (3): 147-148.

8. de Osio-Rodríguez IG. Causas y factores relacionados con la negativa familiar a la donación de órganos en casos de muerte cerebral. Med Univer. 2001; 3 (13): 223-227.

9. Fabre J, Murphy P, Matesanz R. Presumed consent is unnecessary. BMJ. 2010; 341: 922-924.

10. Michielsen P. Presumed consent to organ donation: 10 years’ experience in Belgium. J R Soc Med. 1996; 89 (12): 663-666.