Latest news with #medicalEthics
Yahoo
21-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
RFK Jr orders changes for organ donation network as report finds dozens were not dead when harvested
Amid reports that organ donors may be at risk for having their body parts harvested while still alive and kicking, the Trump administration has launched a sweeping reformation of the U.S. organ transplant system. The move, announced by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., comes on the heels of an investigation by the department's Health Resources and Services Administration that revealed 'disturbing' practices by a major organ procurement organization. 'Our findings show that hospitals allowed the organ procurement process to begin when patients showed signs of life, and this is horrifying,' Kennedy said in a statement. 'The organ procurement organizations that coordinate access to transplants will be held accountable. The entire system must be fixed to ensure that every potential donor's life is treated with the sanctity it deserves.' The administration directed the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network – which links organ donation and transplantation professionals throughout the country – to reopen a case involving potentially preventable harm to a neurologically injured patient by the federally funded organ procurement organization serving Kentucky, southwest Ohio and part of West Virginia. The department did not name the organization. The New York Times recently reported that the federal inquiry had begun last fall after 36-year-old Kentuckian Anthony Thomas Hoover II's organs were pursued even as he shook his head and drew up his knees to his chest. Hoover's sister, Donna Rohrer, had previously told NPR that she felt 'betrayed by the fact that the people that were telling us he was brain dead and then he wakes up.' Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and the Department of Health and Human Services announced a new initiative to reform the nation's organ transplant system. The move comes after an investigation led to 'horrifying' conclusions, he said (AFP via Getty Images) Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates, the group tied to the case, is new a part of Network for Hope: a member of the United Network for Organ Sharing and newly formed organ procurement organization. Network for Hope has criticized The Times' reporting in a page on its website, saying it was missing 'factual clarifications and critical context about organ and tissue donation.' 'We are fully committed to transparency and accountability to their regulations regarding donation after circulatory death donation...' the group said. 'Our goal has always been and will remain to meet the highest ethical and medical standards in donation and transplantation.' There were some 48,000 organ transplants in 2024, according to the United Network for Organ Sharing. Last year, it said there were more than 7,200 donation after circulatory death donors, making up 43 percent of all deceased donors. Donation after circulatory death is defined as when the donor patient is still on life support, near death, and will not recover. It said that neither its staff nor transplant professionals are involved in the determination of death. 'Patient safety is our top priority. Network for Hope looks forward to working collaboratively with HHS and HRSA and encourages the development of policies that support the betterment of the organ transplant system as a whole,' CEO Barry Massa said in a statement sent to The Independent. According to the Trump administration, the Biden administration's Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network's Membership and Professional Standards Committee closed the case without taking action. 'HRSA demanded a thorough, independent review of the organ procurement organization's conduct and the treatment of vulnerable patients under its care. HRSA's independent investigation revealed clear negligence after the previous OPTN Board of Directors claimed to find no major concerns in their internal review,' the department wrote. After examining more than 350 cases were organ donation was authorized but ultimately not completed, it found that 103 showed concerning features, including 73 patients with neurological signs incompatible with organ donation. The Times, citing interviews with health care workers and a review of internal records, audio recordings and text messages, reported that there were 12 additional cases in nine states that troubled medical workers or were being investigated. Donation after circulatory death occurs when someone has a non-survivable brain injury, but because all brain function hasn't stopped, the family decides to withdraw life support. Last year, there were more than 7,200 such donations and researchers are working on new methods to retrieve hearts in these patients. (AP) Furthermore, the department said at least 28 patients may not have been fully dead at the time organ procurement was initiated. The investigation found evidence pointing to poor neurologic assessments, lack of coordination with medical teams, questionable consent practices, and misclassification of causes of death, particularly in cases involving an overdose. It also noted that vulnerabilities were highest in smaller and rural hospitals. In response to the investigation's findings, the administration has mandated corrective actions, as well as 'system-level changes.' Data regarding any safety-related stoppages of organ donation called for by families, hospital, or organ procurement organization staff must be reported to regulators and the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network must adopt a formal procedure allowing any staff member to halt a donation process if patient safety concerns arise. The network must also update its policies. Last September, the federal government increased oversight of the network following a House committee hearing, according to The Times. As of 2022, 170 million Americans had registered as organ donors, according to the administration. Not everyone who registers is able to donate and only three in 1,000 people die in a way that allows for deceased organ donation. 'These findings from HHS confirm what the Trump administration has long warned: entrenched bureaucracies, outdated systems, and reckless disregard for human life have failed to protect our most vulnerable citizens,' the department wrote. With reporting from The Associated Press Solve the daily Crossword
Fox News
21-07-2025
- Health
- Fox News
Organ donors' lives endangered by rushed transplant procedures, investigation finds
As a new report claims that premature organ transplants have endangered donors, HHS Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has announced plans for a new initiative to reform the system. Several families have stated that surgeons attempted to initiate organ retrievals while patients were still alive or improving, as noted in a July 20 report from The New York Times. Amid a growing push for increased transplants, "a growing number of patients have endured premature or bungled attempts to retrieve their organs," according to the report, which painted a picture of "rushed decision-making" and organ demand taking priority over donor safety. In a recent investigation by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), there were more than 70 canceled organ removals in Kentucky alone "that should have been stopped sooner" because the patients showed signs of revival, the report stated. The problem appears to be linked to an increase in "donation after circulatory death," which is when the patient has not been declared "brain dead" but is critically ill or injured. In that case, life support is withdrawn and organs are harvested within a couple of hours after the heart stops naturally. The Times report indicated that 55 medical workers in 19 states reported witnessing "at least one disturbing case of donation after circulatory death" — some even claiming that providers had administered drugs to "hasten the death" of donors. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a statement on Monday announcing an initiative to reform the organ transplant system. The push follows the HRSA's investigation, which reportedly revealed "disturbing practices by a major organ procurement organization." "The entire system must be fixed to ensure that every potential donor's life is treated with the sanctity it deserves." Secretary Kennedy said the investigation revealed that hospitals allowed the organ procurement process to begin "when patients showed signs of life." "This is horrifying," Kennedy said in a statement. "The organ procurement organizations that coordinate access to transplants will be held accountable. The entire system must be fixed to ensure that every potential donor's life is treated with the sanctity it deserves." Under this investigation, HRSA reviewed organ procurement organizations' "conduct and treatment of vulnerable patients." "HRSA's independent investigation revealed clear negligence after the previous [Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network] OPTN board of directors claimed to find no major concerns in their internal review," the HHS noted. HRSA examined 351 cases where organ donation was authorized but not ultimately completed, the agency indicated. Of these, 103 cases, or over 29%, showed "concerning features," including 73 patients who had neurological signs "incompatible" with organ donation. The investigation also discovered that at least 28 patients may not have been deceased at the time of organ procurement. The HHS said this raises "serious ethical and legal questions." "Evidence pointed to poor neurologic assessments, lack of coordination with medical teams, questionable consent practices and misclassification of causes of death, particularly in overdose cases," the agency said. As part of the reform, organ procurement organizations will be required to follow "strict corrective actions" and make "system-level changes" to safeguard potential donors. Dr. Maureen McBride, CEO of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), responded to The New York Times report in an online statement, calling the patient situations "horrific." "This falls far below the standard that the American organ donation and transplant system — the global gold standard — demands, and it cannot be tolerated," she said. "This sharply underscores the need for a more unified and accountable structure for overseeing the nation's organ donation and transplant system." There are currently more than 103,000 men, women and children on the national transplant waiting list. There is currently "fragmented oversight" of the organ transplant system — shared by the HRSA and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) — which has led to "confusion and inconsistent accountability," according to McBride. To ensure a "safe, effective and trustworthy" system, she called for consolidated oversight and an improved patient-safety reporting system. The federal government "remains ultimately accountable for oversight of the system," McBride noted. "UNOS will continue to advocate for reforms to improve the system, and we look forward to sharing our proposed reforms with Congress this week and making meaningful progress in partnership with the federal government to strengthen the system," she added. For more Health articles, visit There are currently more than 103,000 men, women and children on the national transplant waiting list, HRSA said. Each day, 13 people die while waiting for an organ transplant.
New York Times
20-07-2025
- Health
- New York Times
A Push for More Organ Transplants Is Putting Donors at Risk
Last spring at a small Alabama hospital, a team of transplant surgeons prepared to cut into Misty Hawkins. The clock was ticking. Her organs wouldn't be usable for much longer. Days earlier, she had been a vibrant 42-year-old with a playful sense of humor and a love for the Thunder Beach Motorcycle Rally. But after Ms. Hawkins choked while eating and fell into a coma, her mother decided to take her off life support and donate her organs. She was removed from a ventilator and, after 103 minutes, declared dead. A surgeon made an incision in her chest and sawed through her breastbone. That's when the doctors discovered her heart was beating. She appeared to be breathing. They were slicing into Ms. Hawkins while she was alive. Across the United States, an intricate system of hospitals, doctors and nonprofit donation coordinators carries out tens of thousands of lifesaving transplants each year. At every step, it relies on carefully calibrated protocols to protect both donors and recipients. But in recent years, as the system has pushed to increase transplants, a growing number of patients have endured premature or bungled attempts to retrieve their organs. Though Ms. Hawkins's case is an extreme example of what can go wrong, a New York Times examination revealed a pattern of rushed decision-making that has prioritized the need for more organs over the safety of potential donors. 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.
The Sun
29-06-2025
- Entertainment
- The Sun
Apprentice star axed from show in anti-Semitism storm is selling £29 sick notes on demand despite being suspended doctor
AN APPRENTICE star who was axed from the show after a string of complaints over anti-Semitic comments is now peddling £29 sick notes on demand. Disgraced Dr Asif Munaf was also suspended from the medical register after a series of anti-Semitic and sexist social media rants. 4 4 4 He now runs Dr Sick Ltd, a company that offers same-day sick notes for as little as £29. Without any face-to-face or phone consultation, his company sold sick notes enabling customers five months off work for Covid, six weeks for anxiety over a sick pet, and four weeks of home working to enable them to go on holiday abroad. All requests were granted within a few hours, according to The Telegraph. The axed Apprentice star, 37, told the newspaper: "I don't issue the medical notes – I run the business. "Dr Sick Ltd is an ICO-registered, UK-based digital service with a team of five fully GMC-registered UK doctors who issue fit notes in accordance with HIPAA-aligned guidelines." Because he has been suspended by the GMC, he is not allowed to practise medicine or present himself as a medical doctor. In 2024, The BBC took the decision to drop the former NHS doctor turned wellness business owner and aspiring online 'guru' from the Apprentice after receiving complaints about his conduct from the Board of Deputies of British Jews. The Sun previously revealed how the Sheffield-born doctor and accusations of misogyny before the series kicked off. Complaints had been sent to the BBC, including directly to Director General Tim Davie as well as its chairman, Samir Shah, over a social media post. Dr Asif made reference to a "godless, satanic cult [of Zionists]" before asking his followers: "Have you ever met even a semi-average looking Zionist? Aren't they all odiously ogre-like?" The BBC are understood to have discovered his shocking comments after filming on The Apprentice had completed. His now defunct University of Masculinity website also came under fire for its controversial postings and retweeting posts by Andrew Tate. In one vile post about women, he reportedly asked: 'Have you ever met a beautiful feminist?' While a video on his Instagram account is said to have been titled "Don't Trust What Women Say." The former NHS doc launched University of Masculinity — Muslim Passport Bros to pair 'professional brothers of the UK' with women in North Africa. It emerged a week after he was accused of anti-Semitic comments online. He said in a video: 'A lot of brothers have got sick of feminism in the West generally. "Being in the corporate world as a woman all of your life, you are going to rub shoulders with a lot of men. "That is osmosis — you are going to absorb a lot of masculine ideals in terms of competitiveness, being blunt — it is a real problem in the UK." Responding - before the series began - to concerns about Asif's postings, a spokesperson on behalf of The Apprentice said: 'After filming had taken place, we were made aware of concerns over social media posts that Asif had made after he had left the process. As soon as we were alerted, we took immediate action and spoke to Asif in detail on this. 'Asif took part in specialised training to understand why his posts may cause offence. We are committed to providing an inclusive environment on and off screen.' Dr Asif said at the time: 'I apologise for any offence caused by my online content/social media. "It was not my intention to offend anyone, and I am of course open to all views. The beliefs I hold and have shared are based on the values that I was brought up with.' 4
The Guardian
18-06-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
The debate over assisted dying and palliative care
I do not disagree with Gordon Brown that palliative care should be better funded, but to present palliative care as the alternative to assisted dying is to present a false equivalence, since the principles behind the two are quite different (MPs have personal beliefs, but also solemn duties: that's why they must reject the assisted dying bill this week, 16 June). The principle behind the entitlement to good palliative care is that one should be entitled to good medical care – in this instance, as death approaches. The principle behind the right to an assisted death is that one should be entitled to determine the time and manner of one's passing. If one were always to prioritise the right to good medical care above the right to have control over one's death, it is unlikely that assisted dying would ever be legalised, as there will always be some medical care for somebody that could be better funded. But that is to choose to prioritise one principle over another. Quite simply, MPs need to decide whether, as a matter of principle and within strict limits, a person should be entitled to determine the time and manner of their own death. Implementation of that principle will be difficult in just the same way as the implementation in law and practice of any principle. The numerous revisions to the assisted dying bill reflect that difficulty, but do nothing to undermine the principle behind the bill. Dr Alistair MacdonaldHuddersfield, West Yorkshire Gordon Brown states that 'every year, more than 600,000 people die in the UK. It is estimated that between 75% and 90% of them should have the benefit of palliative care, and that 100,000 terminally ill people do not receive the palliative care they need.' I agree that this is a dreadful situation. But I don't see the logic in denying an assisted death to those who meet all the safeguards in the bill and do not want to suffer due to the shortage of palliative care. This seems to be punishing individuals because successive governments have failed to sort out sufficient funding for palliative care. He also states that 'we should not deny terminally ill people the freedom to choose. But there is no effective freedom to choose if the alternative option, the freedom to draw on high-quality end-of-life care, is not available.' Perhaps he should put himself in the shoes of someone whose pain cannot be relieved even by high-quality end-of-life care, or someone with a neurodegenerative disease where palliative care cannot always help. For these people, there is no other option but to continue suffering. Where is the compassion in saying: 'Sorry, you can't have an assisted death until we have sorted out palliative care for all?' Katy BarnettLondon While we can all agree with Gordon Brown that hospice and palliative care need more funding I don't feel that this is an argument against assisted dying. Palliative care doesn't always work. My son died in his local hospice with the highest level of palliative care available. I was with him at his admission when the consultant said: 'I will not be able to control your pain well enough for you to sleep.' This turned out to be the case and he suffered horribly for several weeks. I believe that assisted dying doesn't shorten life, it shortens death. In his article, Brown worries about people being coerced by their families. In my 17 years as a nurse I looked after many dying patients and don't remember any incidence of a family wanting to speed the process (unless their loved one was clearly suffering). It was usually the opposite, with the patient ready to go and the family pleading with the doctors to try anything else to keep them alive. Brown argues that taking part in assisted dying would change the role of the medical profession from one of purely caregiving, but I disagree. I always did my utmost to minimise my patients' suffering and if the ability to shorten that suffering had been available, I would have felt it to be wholly appropriate to my caring McGeeRedcar, North Yorkshire Thank you, Gordon Brown, for stating cogently why MPs should reject the assisted dying bill at the free vote on Friday. If the vote is passed, some of the responsibility for when terminally ill people die will pass from palliative care teams and GPs to lawyers. This will just make it more expensive and conflictual, and will deflect from the need to invest in palliative care that Brown pinpoints. Legislators, and people approaching death who fear losing control, should read the literature on shared decision-making, which is basically how GPs interact with patients. If used correctly, it is just as empowering as 'patient choice' and obviates the need for lethal injection. Shared decision-making could become the legal framework for end-of-life care decisions, if accompanied by expert, empathic and properly funded primary care and palliative Jeremy Seymour Sheffield Thank you, Gordon Brown, for wisely and eruditely voicing concerns with the assisted dying bill. Having just retired from NHS primary care service in a deprived area, I have witnessed the progress over 40 years of palliative care services, which remain hamstrung by an unfair funding model. This will not change if the impetus to provide universality is removed by focusing on the right to die. A doctor's oath to do no harm does not, in my view, extend to ending Martin BelshamThetford, Norfolk Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
