New Paper Argues for Consent Before Apnea Test in DNC Diagnosis
A recent paper explores a contentious issue in medical ethics: the need for consent before performing the sleep apnea test, a key procedure in diagnosing death by neurologic criteria (DNC). The authors address and counter two significant objections to this requirement.
The paper first addresses the concern of unfair resource allocation. It argues that demanding consent does not unduly burden healthcare systems, as the test is a simple, low-cost procedure. Moreover, it maintains that respecting patients' rights is a worthy investment.
Next, the authors refute the worry of reduced organ donors. They assert that requiring consent does not deter families from donating organs, as the decision to donate is often made independently of the apnea test.
The paper defends a consent requirement on several grounds. It appeals to the principles of informed consent, asserting that patients have the right to know and agree to medical procedures. It also invokes the concept of battery, warning that performing the test without consent may constitute an assault. Furthermore, it cites the right to refuse medical treatment, emphasizing that patients should have control over their bodies.
The authors note that demanding consent can halt the DNC process, which, while inconvenient, is a necessary consequence of respecting patients' rights. They point to court rulings in Virginia and Nevada that have upheld this requirement.
The paper concludes that, despite some practical challenges, a consent requirement for apnea testing is legally and ethically sound. It urges healthcare providers and policymakers to respect patients' rights, even in the complex and emotive realm of organ donation. The authors acknowledge the unsettled and inconsistent state of US law on this issue, emphasizing the need for clear, patient-centered guidelines.
