Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 4027
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2002  |  Volume : 50  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 358-359

In reply



Correspondence Address:
M Vanathi


Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 12532511

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Vanathi M, Tandon R, Vajpayee RB. In reply. Indian J Ophthalmol 2002;50:358-9

How to cite this URL:
Vanathi M, Tandon R, Vajpayee RB. In reply. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2002 [cited 2020 Jun 4];50:358-9. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2002/50/4/358/14746


  Dear Editor, Top


I would like to thank Vanathi et al for their interest in my article. Shortage of corneas severely limits our ability to help people with corneal blindness. Frustration caused by shortages has lead to the promotion of controversial options such as the offer of financial incentives for organ donation.[1] This raises serious ethical issues and has potential for misuse. Other studies,[2] besides mine, have found media publicity inadequate and recommend that public education as a primary focus for organ procurement be abandoned. However, rather than giving it up altogether, public education may be refocused to encourage family discussions on eye donation, so that families are more likely to consent to donation when asked.[1] Mandated choice[3] honours an individual's wish to donate upon his death, but has logistical problems due to the cost and complexity of maintaining a national database of donors. There are also ethical issues since it bypasses the family, who have the right to be asked and whose views must be respected.

I agree with Vanathi et al that ultimately it is the family of the potential donor who must be positively influenced to enhance donation rates. Hospital retrieval systems should be developed in tandem with public education. Doctors, nurses, paramedical staff and medical students are ideally placed to perform this function. Training courses should be offered in effective procedures for requesting donation. Studies have shown that training of staff is significantly associated with higher rates of donation.[4]

 
  References Top

1.
De Jong, W, Drachman J, Gortmaker SL. Options for increasing organ donation: The potential role of financial incentives, standardised hospital procedures, and public education to promote family discussion. Milbank Q 1995;73:463-79.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Verble M, Worth J. The case against more public education to promote organ donation. J Transpl Coord 1996;6:200-3.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Spital A. Mandated choice for organ donation: Time to give it a try.Ann Intern Med 1996;125:66-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
4.
Evanisko MJ, Beasley CL, Brigham LE, Capossela C, Cosgrove GR, Light J et al. Readiness of critical care physicians and nurses to handle requests for organ donation. Am J Crit Care 1998;7:4-12.  Back to cited text no. 4
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Dear Editor,
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1502    
    Printed71    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded77    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal