Organ Deception

The Illegal Organ Trade

Dr. Sarah Peters was a highly respected surgeon at Mercy Hospital, known for her dedication to her patients and her skill in performing organ transplants. She had just finished a successful liver transplant surgery and was checking on her patient when she received a phone call.

“Dr. Peters, this is Detective Johnson from the police department. I’m sorry to disturb you, but we need to speak with you regarding a case.”

Dr. Peters was puzzled. “What case? I’m not sure how I can be of any help.”

“It’s about an organ donor,” the detective replied. “We received an anonymous tip that a patient in your care received a liver from a prisoner who was executed last week. We need to know if you have any knowledge of this.”

Dr. Peters was taken aback. She had no idea about any prisoner donations. “I assure you, Detective, that we follow all the legal protocols and guidelines when it comes to organ donations. I can check with our transplant coordinator and let you know if we have any records of a prisoner donation.”

“Please do that, Dr. Peters,” the detective said. “And we might need to talk to you further about this.”

Dr. Peters hung up the phone, feeling uneasy. She knew the importance of following the rules and guidelines when it came to organ donations, but she couldn’t shake the feeling that something was off.

Later that day, the transplant coordinator informed Dr. Peters that there was indeed a liver donation from a prisoner, but it had been properly documented and approved by the organ procurement organization. Dr. Peters felt relieved, but the nagging feeling remained.

Over the next few days, strange things started to happen. The transplant coordinator reported that some of the organ donation records had gone missing, and a few of the nurses claimed that they had overheard Dr. Peters arguing with someone over the phone about an organ donation. Dr. Peters denied any wrongdoing, but the detective wasn’t convinced.

Then, one night, Dr. Peters was found dead in her office. The cause of death was a lethal injection of potassium.

Detective Johnson was stumped. Who would want to kill a respected surgeon like Dr. Peters? And what did it have to do with organ donations?

As the investigation continued, the detective uncovered a complex scheme involving a black market for nonrenewable organs. Dr. Peters had been approached by a group of individuals who promised her a large sum of money if she could procure nonrenewable organs for them. Dr. Peters, who had been struggling with financial issues, had agreed to their offer and had started to manipulate the organ donation records to cover up the illegal transactions.

When one of the patients who received an illegally obtained organ found out about the scheme, he threatened to go to the police. Dr. Peters, fearing exposure, decided to eliminate the threat by injecting him with a lethal dose of potassium. But when the detective started to ask questions about the prisoner donation, Dr. Peters became even more paranoid and injected herself with the potassium, knowing that she was soon to be caught.

In the end, the detective was able to apprehend the group responsible for the illegal organ trade and bring them to justice. The case served as a sobering reminder of the importance of following the rules and guidelines when it comes to organ donations and of the consequences of failing to do so.

CORRECT! 🙂

[34:6] A fertilized ovum becomes an embryo once the cells start to divide. In the United States, it is illegal to pay for an embryo, such as a frozen embryo, but an embryo can be donated. An open donation means that the donor knows the recipient, and a closed donation means that the donor does not know the recipient. Other options are to donate to scientific research, where under no circumstances will the embryo ever become a child, or to keep the embryos frozen indefinitely. Legal problems can and do occur regarding what to do with the frozen embryos in cases of divorce, death, and inheritance. Referring to embryonic donations as an embryonic adoption is controversial because the term adoption refers to a person, and an embryo is legally not a person.

Wrong 😕

[34:6] A fertilized ovum becomes an embryo once the cells start to divide. In the United States, it is illegal to pay for an embryo, such as a frozen embryo, but an embryo can be donated. An open donation means that the donor knows the recipient, and a closed donation means that the donor does not know the recipient. Other options are to donate to scientific research, where under no circumstances will the embryo ever become a child, or to keep the embryos frozen indefinitely. Legal problems can and do occur regarding what to do with the frozen embryos in cases of divorce, death, and inheritance. Referring to embryonic donations as an embryonic adoption is controversial because the term adoption refers to a person, and an embryo is legally not a person.

CORRECT! 🙂

[34:6] A fertilized ovum becomes an embryo once the cells start to divide. In the United States, it is illegal to pay for an embryo, such as a frozen embryo, but an embryo can be donated. An open donation means that the donor knows the recipient, and a closed donation means that the donor does not know the recipient. Other options are to donate to scientific research, where under no circumstances will the embryo ever become a child, or to keep the embryos frozen indefinitely. Legal problems can and do occur regarding what to do with the frozen embryos in cases of divorce, death, and inheritance. Referring to embryonic donations as an embryonic adoption is controversial because the term adoption refers to a person, and an embryo is legally not a person.

Wrong 😕

[34:6] A fertilized ovum becomes an embryo once the cells start to divide. In the United States, it is illegal to pay for an embryo, such as a frozen embryo, but an embryo can be donated. An open donation means that the donor knows the recipient, and a closed donation means that the donor does not know the recipient. Other options are to donate to scientific research, where under no circumstances will the embryo ever become a child, or to keep the embryos frozen indefinitely. Legal problems can and do occur regarding what to do with the frozen embryos in cases of divorce, death, and inheritance. Referring to embryonic donations as an embryonic adoption is controversial because the term adoption refers to a person, and an embryo is legally not a person.

CORRECT! 🙂

[34:6] A fertilized ovum becomes an embryo once the cells start to divide. In the United States, it is illegal to pay for an embryo, such as a frozen embryo, but an embryo can be donated. An open donation means that the donor knows the recipient, and a closed donation means that the donor does not know the recipient. Other options are to donate to scientific research, where under no circumstances will the embryo ever become a child, or to keep the embryos frozen indefinitely. Legal problems can and do occur regarding what to do with the frozen embryos in cases of divorce, death, and inheritance. Referring to embryonic donations as an embryonic adoption is controversial because the term adoption refers to a person, and an embryo is legally not a person.

Wrong 😕

[34:6] A fertilized ovum becomes an embryo once the cells start to divide. In the United States, it is illegal to pay for an embryo, such as a frozen embryo, but an embryo can be donated. An open donation means that the donor knows the recipient, and a closed donation means that the donor does not know the recipient. Other options are to donate to scientific research, where under no circumstances will the embryo ever become a child, or to keep the embryos frozen indefinitely. Legal problems can and do occur regarding what to do with the frozen embryos in cases of divorce, death, and inheritance. Referring to embryonic donations as an embryonic adoption is controversial because the term adoption refers to a person, and an embryo is legally not a person.

CORRECT! 🙂

[34:7] An autonomous donor can provide informed consent for the donation of their nonrenewable organs. Under no circumstance can a person be compelled to donate an organ or tissue, regardless of whether or not the donation is of little consequence to the donor or high consequence for the potential recipient.

Wrong 😕

[34:7] An autonomous donor can provide informed consent for the donation of their nonrenewable organs. Under no circumstance can a person be compelled to donate an organ or tissue, regardless of whether or not the donation is of little consequence to the donor or high consequence for the potential recipient.

CORRECT! 🙂

[34:8] Once informed consent decision to donate has been made, the donor may withdraw their decision at any time for any or no reason. For example, if a patient is histocompatible and decides to donate to a designated family recipient but changes their mind, then that is permissible. To minimize the social coercion and negative judgment, the practitioner should respond if asked, that the individual was not a suitable candidate for donation.

Wrong 😕

[34:8] Once informed consent decision to donate has been made, the donor may withdraw their decision at any time for any or no reason. For example, if a patient is histocompatible and decides to donate to a designated family recipient but changes their mind, then that is permissible. To minimize the social coercion and negative judgment, the practitioner should respond if asked, that the individual was not a suitable candidate for donation.

CORRECT! 🙂

[34:11] It is professionally, legally, and morally impermissible to both care for a donor and the recipient as that is considered to be a serious conflict of interest and would erode the patient-practitioner relationship.

Wrong 😕

[34:11] It is professionally, legally, and morally impermissible to both care for a donor and the recipient as that is considered to be a serious conflict of interest and would erode the patient-practitioner relationship.

Wrong 😕

[34:12] Federal law mandates that all families be provided the option to donate when death is imminent. Only a representative of an organ procurement organization is allowed to initiate an organ donation request.

CORRECT! 🙂

[34:12] Federal law mandates that all families be provided the option to donate when death is imminent. Only a representative of an organ procurement organization is allowed to initiate an organ donation request.

CORRECT! 🙂

Explanation: In the context of the patient's best interests, interprofessional team members should communicate clearly and professionally with all team members about patient management [33:4]. In the scenario, if the nurse has concerns about the patient's management plan, they should immediately discuss those concerns with the physician and resolve them as part of the shared professional principle of nonmaleficence (do no harm) [33:4]. However, if there is a disagreement about patient management, the nurse should document their concerns and escalate them to the medical institution's patient advocacy department for resolution [33:4]. The patient-practitioner relationship should be maintained, and discussing disagreements about patient management with the patient should be avoided [33:4]. Refusing to participate in the management plan until their concerns are addressed may cause harm to the patient and is not in line with the shared professional principle of beneficence (do good) [33:4].

Wrong 😕

Explanation: In the context of the patient's best interests, interprofessional team members should communicate clearly and professionally with all team members about patient management [33:4]. In the scenario, if the nurse has concerns about the patient's management plan, they should immediately discuss those concerns with the physician and resolve them as part of the shared professional principle of nonmaleficence (do no harm) [33:4]. However, if there is a disagreement about patient management, the nurse should document their concerns and escalate them to the medical institution's patient advocacy department for resolution [33:4]. The patient-practitioner relationship should be maintained, and discussing disagreements about patient management with the patient should be avoided [33:4]. Refusing to participate in the management plan until their concerns are addressed may cause harm to the patient and is not in line with the shared professional principle of beneficence (do good) [33:4].

CORRECT! 🙂

Explanation: In the context of the patient's best interests, interprofessional team members should communicate clearly and professionally with all team members about patient management [33:4]. If an interprofessional team member has concerns about the patient's management plan, those concerns should be immediately discussed with the practitioner and resolved [33:4]. However, if there is a disagreement about patient management, the team member should document their concerns and escalate them to the medical institution's patient advocacy department for resolution [33:4]. It is not appropriate for the respiratory therapist to modify the treatment plan as per their professional judgment [33:4]. The shared professional principle of nonmaleficence (do no harm) requires the respiratory therapist to comply with the physician's management plan and continue to monitor the patient for any adverse effects [33:4]. Discussing disagreements about patient management with the patient undermines the patient-practitioner relationship and negatively impacts patient healing [33:4].

Wrong 😕

Explanation: In the context of the patient's best interests, interprofessional team members should communicate clearly and professionally with all team members about patient management [33:4]. If an interprofessional team member has concerns about the patient's management plan, those concerns should be immediately discussed with the practitioner and resolved [33:4]. However, if there is a disagreement about patient management, the team member should document their concerns and escalate them to the medical institution's patient advocacy department for resolution [33:4]. It is not appropriate for the respiratory therapist to modify the treatment plan as per their professional judgment [33:4]. The shared professional principle of nonmaleficence (do no harm) requires the respiratory therapist to comply with the physician's management plan and continue to monitor the patient for any adverse effects [33:4]. Discussing disagreements about patient management with the patient undermines the patient-practitioner relationship and negatively impacts patient healing [33:4].

Wrong 😕

Explanation: In the context of the patient's best interests, interprofessional team members must communicate effectively and provide emergency care, resolve disagreements, and avoid discussing patient management disputes with the patient [33:4]. When a patient reports adverse effects from medication prescribed by the physician, the nurse should document the patient's concerns and report them to the physician, who will determine the appropriate management plan [33:4]. The shared professional principle of nonmaleficence (do no harm) requires all team members to take immediate action to address any concerns regarding patient safety [33:3]. Adjusting the medication dosage or prescribing a new medication without consulting the physician is not in line with the interprofessional team's professional prime directive of maximizing the patient's best interests and avoiding harm [33:3]. Telling the patient to stop taking the medication without consulting the physician can also cause harm to the patient and is not in line with the shared professional principle of beneficence (do good) [33:3]. Therefore, the ethical responsibility of the nurse is to document the patient's concerns and report them to the physician, who has the primary responsibility for ensuring that patient management is performed competently and professionally [33:7].

CORRECT! 🙂

Explanation: In the context of the patient's best interests, interprofessional team members must communicate effectively and provide emergency care, resolve disagreements, and avoid discussing patient management disputes with the patient [33:4]. When a patient reports adverse effects from medication prescribed by the physician, the nurse should document the patient's concerns and report them to the physician, who will determine the appropriate management plan [33:4]. The shared professional principle of nonmaleficence (do no harm) requires all team members to take immediate action to address any concerns regarding patient safety [33:3]. Adjusting the medication dosage or prescribing a new medication without consulting the physician is not in line with the interprofessional team's professional prime directive of maximizing the patient's best interests and avoiding harm [33:3]. Telling the patient to stop taking the medication without consulting the physician can also cause harm to the patient and is not in line with the shared professional principle of beneficence (do good) [33:3]. Therefore, the ethical responsibility of the nurse is to document the patient's concerns and report them to the physician, who has the primary responsibility for ensuring that patient management is performed competently and professionally [33:7].

CORRECT! 🙂

Explanation: In the context of the patient's best interests, interprofessional team members should communicate clearly and professionally with all team members about patient management [33:4]. In the scenario, if the respiratory therapist has concerns about the patient's management plan, they should immediately discuss those concerns with the physician and resolve them as part of the shared professional principle of nonmaleficence (do no harm) [33:4]. However, if there is a disagreement about patient management, the respiratory therapist should comply with the physician's management plan and continue to monitor the patient for any adverse effects [33:4]. Refusing to participate in the management plan until their concerns are addressed may cause harm to the patient and is not in line with the shared professional principle of beneficence (do good) [33:4]. Documenting concerns and escalating to the medical institution's patient advocacy department for resolution may be necessary, but compliance with the management plan is essential for patient safety and optimal outcomes [33:4]. Discussing disagreements about patient management with the patient should be avoided to maintain the patient-practitioner relationship and prevent harm to the patient [33:4].

Wrong 😕

Explanation: In the context of the patient's best interests, interprofessional team members should communicate clearly and professionally with all team members about patient management [33:4]. In the scenario, if the respiratory therapist has concerns about the patient's management plan, they should immediately discuss those concerns with the physician and resolve them as part of the shared professional principle of nonmaleficence (do no harm) [33:4]. However, if there is a disagreement about patient management, the respiratory therapist should comply with the physician's management plan and continue to monitor the patient for any adverse effects [33:4]. Refusing to participate in the management plan until their concerns are addressed may cause harm to the patient and is not in line with the shared professional principle of beneficence (do good) [33:4]. Documenting concerns and escalating to the medical institution's patient advocacy department for resolution may be necessary, but compliance with the management plan is essential for patient safety and optimal outcomes [33:4]. Discussing disagreements about patient management with the patient should be avoided to maintain the patient-practitioner relationship and prevent harm to the patient [33:4].

CORRECT! 🙂

Explanation: The nurse's primary ethical obligation in this scenario is to provide emergency care as quickly as possible to minimize harm to the patient. As noted in paragraph [33:4], "Interprofessional team members have the authority and obligation to provide the medical standards of care unless a specific patient documented order in the medical record or an available living will communicate otherwise." In this case, the nurse recognizes the severity of the patient's condition and immediately begins administering supplemental oxygen, aspirin, and nitroglycerin according to established emergency care protocols. Waiting for the physician to arrive before taking action could result in a delay in care that could increase the risk of harm to the patient. Contacting the patient's family or waiting for the patient to provide informed consent before administering treatment are not immediate priorities in an emergency situation where prompt action is necessary to maximize the patient's best interests.

Wrong 😕

Explanation: The nurse's primary ethical obligation in this scenario is to provide emergency care as quickly as possible to minimize harm to the patient. As noted in paragraph [33:4], "Interprofessional team members have the authority and obligation to provide the medical standards of care unless a specific patient documented order in the medical record or an available living will communicate otherwise." In this case, the nurse recognizes the severity of the patient's condition and immediately begins administering supplemental oxygen, aspirin, and nitroglycerin according to established emergency care protocols. Waiting for the physician to arrive before taking action could result in a delay in care that could increase the risk of harm to the patient. Contacting the patient's family or waiting for the patient to provide informed consent before administering treatment are not immediate priorities in an emergency situation where prompt action is necessary to maximize the patient's best interests.