Doctors Were Preparing to Remove Their Organs. Then They Woke Up.
Four years ago, an unconscious Kentucky man began to awaken as he was about to be removed from life support so his organs could be donated. Even though the man cried, pulled his legs to his chest and shook his head, officials still tried to move forward.
Now, a federal investigation has found that officials at the nonprofit in charge of coordinating organ donations in Kentucky ignored signs of growing alertness not only in that patient but also in dozens of other potential donors.
The investigation examined about 350 cases in Kentucky over the past four years in which plans to remove organs were ultimately canceled. It found that in 73 instances, officials should have considered stopping sooner because the patients had high or improving levels of consciousness.
Although the surgeries didn't happen, the investigation said multiple patients showed signs of pain or distress while being readied for the procedure.
Most of the patients eventually died, hours or days later. But some recovered enough to leave the hospital, according to an investigation by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, whose findings were shared with The New York Times.
The investigation centered on an increasingly common practice called 'donation after circulatory death.' Unlike most organ donors, who are brain-dead, patients in these cases have some brain function but are on life support and not expected to recover. Often, they are in a coma.
Share your story about the organ transplant system
We will not publish any part of your submission without contacting you first. We may use your contact information to follow up with you.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
30 minutes ago
- Medscape
Rurality, Age May Shape Phone-Only Mental Health Care Access
Patients living in rural areas and those aged 65 years or older had increased odds of receiving mental health care exclusively by phone. METHODOLOGY: Researchers explored factors linked to receiving phone-only mental health care among patients within the Department of Veterans Affairs. They included data for 1,156,146 veteran patients with at least one mental health-specific outpatient encounter between October 2021 and September 2022 and at least one between October 2022 and September 2023. Patients were categorized as those who received care through phone only (n = 49,125) and those who received care through other methods (n = 1,107,021. Care was received exclusively through video (6.39%), in-person (6.63%), or a combination of in-person, video, and/or phone (86.98%). Demographic and clinical predictors, including rurality, age, sex, race, ethnicity, and the number of mental health diagnoses (< 3 vs ≥ 3), were evaluated. TAKEAWAY: The phone-only group had a mean of 6.27 phone visits, whereas those who received care through other methods had a mean of 4.79 phone visits. Highly rural patients had 1.50 times higher odds of receiving phone-only mental health care than their urban counterparts (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.50; P < .0001). < .0001). Patients aged 65 years or older were more than twice as likely to receive phone-only care than those younger than 30 years (aOR, ≥ 2.17; P < .0001). < .0001). Having fewer than three mental health diagnoses and more than 50% of mental health visits conducted by medical providers was associated with higher odds of receiving mental health care exclusively by phone (aORs, 2.03 and 1.87, respectively; P < .0001). IN PRACTICE: 'The results of this work help to characterize the phone-only patient population and can serve to inform future implementation efforts to ensure that patients are receiving care via the modality that best meets their needs,' the authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Samantha L. Connolly, PhD, at the VA Boston Healthcare System in Boston. It was published online on June 13, 2025, in The Journal of Rural Health . LIMITATIONS: This study focused on a veteran population which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other groups. Additionally, its cross-sectional design restricted the ability to determine cause-and-effect relationships between factors and phone-only care. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. Credit Lead image: Nick Sokoloff/WebMD Ignite Medscape Medical News © 2025 WebMD, LLC Cite this: Edited by Manasi Talwadekar. Rurality and Age May Shape Phone-Only Mental Health Care Access Among Veterans - Medscape - June 18, 2025.
Medscape
40 minutes ago
- Medscape
Head Position Matters in Stroke Care Before Thrombectomy
A flat 0° head positioning before thrombectomy was associated with a significantly less risk for early neurologic deterioration and all-cause mortality than a conventional 30° head elevation in adults with large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke, a new study showed. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted the prospective, multicenter ZODIAC trial from 2018 to 2023 with 92 patients (mean age, 67 years; 52% men). All had LVO stroke confirmed on CT angiography and a viable penumbra and were eligible for thrombectomy within 24 hours of stroke. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 0° (n = 45) or 30° (n = 47) head-of-bed positioning before thrombectomy. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores were assessed every 10 minutes until thrombectomy began. The primary endpoint was early neurologic deterioration, defined as a worsening of ≥ 2 NIHSS points before thrombectomy. Additional outcomes were severe neurologic deterioration (worsening of ≥ 4 NIHSS points) before thrombectomy, hospital-acquired pneumonia, and all-cause death within 3 months. TAKEAWAY: Early neurologic deterioration was more common in the 30° group than in the 0° group (55% vs 2%; hazard ratio [HR], 34.4; P < .001), as was severe neurologic deterioration (n = 20 vs n = 1; HR, 23.6; P = .002). < .001), as was severe neurologic deterioration (n = 20 vs n = 1; HR, 23.6; = .002). The all-cause mortality rate at 90 days was significantly lower in the 0° group than in the 30° group (4% vs 22%; P = .03). = .03). A greater proportion of patients in the 0° group than in the 30° group showed neurologic improvement at 24 hours post-thrombectomy (87% vs 60%; odds ratio, 0.2; P = .01). = .01). No participant in either group developed hospital-acquired pneumonia. IN PRACTICE: 'Results suggest that patients awaiting thrombectomy treatment for LVO stroke should be positioned with the head at 0° to ensure clinical stability and prevent worsening,' the investigators wrote. 'We posit that 0° head positioning is a bridging maneuver to thrombectomy, protecting ischemic tissue and possibly reducing infarct progression before definitive treatment,' they added. SOURCE: This study was led by Anne W. Alexandrov, PhD, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee. It was published online on June 04 in JAMA Neurology . LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its small sample size and early termination, the lack of blinding to head position, and the exclusion of data on thrombectomy decisions. Additionally, patients transferred between facilities were excluded, which may have affected the 3-month outcomes. DISCLOSURES: Funding was provided by the NIH. Several investigators reported receiving a grant or per-patient payment from NIH during the study. One also reported being a paid co-investigator on the NIH grant for imaging core lab services. Full details are listed in the original article.
Medscape
44 minutes ago
- Medscape
How Proposed Tariffs Could Disrupt US Drug Prices and Supply
Pharmaceutical tariffs, as proposed by President Donald Trump, aim to boost manufacturing jobs in the US, curb foreign profits, and bolster national security. However, such tariffs could increase the price and reduce the availability of both branded and generic medications, according to two health policy experts. In an online press briefing on Wednesday, June 11, Mariana Socal, MD, PhD, and Jeromie Ballreich, PhD — both associate professors in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore — outlined potential ramifications and responded to journalists' questions. Pharmaceuticals Are Still Exempt — for Now To date, pharmaceutical drugs have been exempted from tariffs. However, Trump has stated repeatedly that his administration plans to impose major tariffs on them soon. 'Branded pharmaceuticals only account for about 15% of US prescriptions,' Ballreich said. 'However, they account for nearly 90% of spending.' Over the past 20 years, he noted, much of the manufacturing has shifted overseas, not to low-income countries to save labor costs, but to high-income countries — primarily Switzerland, Ireland, and Germany — for tax benefits. 'Today the US pays three to four times more than other developed countries for the same branded drugs,' Socal said. As a result, 'about 1 in 4 Americans report not being able to afford the medications they need. If tariffs are applied to prescription drugs, one of the most immediate consequences could be price increases.' The market for generics is separate, she explained. These drugs typically cost much less and account for the vast majority of prescriptions. 'For generics, the biggest issue isn't cost — it's supply shortages. Hospitals report daily struggles to care for patients because there is a shortage of some drug they need.' Tariffs on generic products may exacerbate shortages, she warned. Because they have lower profit margins and no patent protection, tariffs may discourage production or lead countries to cut corners, increasing the risk for supply disruptions. If implemented, tariffs could range from 25% to 50%, Ballreich said. 'We expect these tariffs to be passed on to the Medicare program, and ultimately patients will either pay more at the pharmacy or face higher Medicare Part D premiums.' Signs of Anticipation In anticipation of potential tariffs, Ballreich said there's already been a surge in pharmaceutical imports. 'To put it in perspective, Ireland — our single largest source of branded pharmaceuticals — saw a fivefold increase in US imports in the month of March year over year.' While the US does maintain some drug stockpiles, Socal noted these are primarily for bioterrorism or acute emergency response. Proposals have been floated for hospitals to stockpile certain drugs, especially injectable medications frequently in shortage, but the scope remains unclear. 'We cannot have stockpiles over stockpiles for every single drug,' she said. 'Policies to resolve supply disruptions and shortages should be the way to go.' Unintended Consequences Socal also pointed to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which created the Medicare drug price negotiation program and introduced an inflation rebate penalty for manufacturers who raise prices faster than inflation. That penalty applies to Medicaid prescriptions as well. Penalizing offending manufacturers, she said, 'can have an unintended consequence. If the manufacturer cannot raise prices because the penalty might be too high, one of the possibilities is that the manufacturer may simply want to discontinue a drug.' US Manufacturing Still Years Away When asked how long it would take to scale up domestic production of branded drugs, Ballreich said, 'Years.' While most drugs are small-molecule and typically pills, biologics are much more complex, he noted. 'I don't think we're going to see a significant surge in domestic or US manufacturing of branded pharmaceuticals in the near term, that is, within the next year or 2.' He said reassessing tax policy should be prioritized because 'that's why many of the manufacturers have located outside the US, particularly to other high-income countries. We also have to think about other subsidies and making sure we have a very well-developed, well-trained workforce.' Socal emphasized that many drugs are already made in the US, but domestic manufacturers still depend heavily on foreign ingredients and raw materials. 'Tariffs on pharmaceutical products coming in from abroad can also hurt our US manufacturers because their prices may then be less competitive in the global market,' she said. Socal reported receiving research grants to the institution (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) from the US Department of Defense, Arnold Ventures, the California Department of Health Care Access and Information, and the ERISA Industry Committee. Ballreich reported receiving consulting fees from RTI International for work related to Medicare price negotiations and research grants to the institution (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) from the US Department of Defense and Arnold Ventures.
