Summary of Events
On January 28th, The Institute of Clinical Bioethics held the first Bioethics Discussion Group of the semester, where undergraduate fellows and medical students engaged in meaningful conversations about the ethics of organ procurement. The discussion was guided by Fr. Peter Clark and ICB bioethics intern Fredy Abboud. Medical students Jeremy Muhr, Isabella Stefanic, and Chun-Kit Shum provided unique insight as future providers, while undergraduate fellows Isabella Jimenez, Spencer Mathers, Ian McCauley, Alexis Rainis, and Nathan Frey added their own perspectives, insights, and questions. The group as a whole analyzed how physicians determine death, including brain death, circulatory death, and employment of normothermic regional perfusion, and how these methods form ethical donation practices.
The first case discussed involved a patient at Virtua Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in
Camden, New Jersey, who appeared to show signs of life during the organ donation procedure
after being pronounced dead. While the NJ Organ and Tissue Sharing Network instructed the
team to continue harvesting, the hospital staff refused and an investigation was launched into the
case. This case presents issues about how physicians pronounce individuals dead and the broader
implications about accountability, transparency, and dignity. The group discussed the
requirements and criteria for both brain death and circulatory death, and how they are employed
by physicians every day. By reaffirming the criteria and avoiding the ambiguity around the organ
donation process, trust can be established with the public and organs can be ethically procured
and donated. Fr. Clark lectured the group on this topic, exploring philosophical perspectives on
personhood, including the ‘higher brain function’ concept and the idea that relational capacity is
central to human identity.
Fellow Reflections
The discussion stimulated intellectual curiosity by highlighting how organ donation and
transplantation is not only a medical issue, but also an ethical and legal one. Additionally, it
raised questions about how hospitals approach the issue of just allocation of resources while
considering factors such as consent, fairness, and ethical responsibility. Having medical students
present was very important, as it not only provided a different perspective from those directly in
the field, but also allowed them to share their unique experiences and raise questions we would
not have otherwise considered. Their presence allowed us to connect the articles and cases
discussed to real-world situations and professional responsibility.
We also learned a great deal about the issue medically, legally, and ethically. Medically,
it was intriguing to discuss and learn about the standard of organ viability, physician
responsibilities, and donor eligibility. In a legal sense, the group discussed the consent laws and
what donor registries use as criteria for allocation. Ethically, it placed the pillars of bioethics at
the center of decision-making, emphasizing fairness, autonomy, and just allocation of a limited
resource. The synthesis of these three elements reinforces that medicine, law, and ethics are all
fundamentally intertwined and cannot exist effectively without each other.
The discussion significantly strengthened our desire to pursue medicine. It
exemplified the role of a physician in not just medical treatment, but also ethical decision-
making. The presence of a bioethicist and medical students presented the reality of the day-to-
day life of a physician, treating both the condition and the person holistically. Physicians hold a
responsibility to both the patient and society in their scope of practice and must make ethical
decisions accordingly, a notion that may be overlooked by many who do not hear the testimonies of those who have lived it. It reinforced our idea that medicine requires compassion,
communication, and moral judgment to be effectively implemented.