Premium
Comprehensive analysis of policies of whole body donor programs within the United States
Author(s) -
Elzie Carrie,
Cruz Bianca
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.2020.34.s1.05176
Subject(s) - donation , medicine , state (computer science) , informed consent , medical education , family medicine , political science , public relations , psychology , law , alternative medicine , computer science , algorithm , pathology
Many schools around the United States use cadavers in their instruction; however, the acquisition of these bodies vary immensely from school to school. Previous studies have shown that many schools around the United States lack detail in their consent process. Therefore, we looked at all US whole body bequeathal programs (state and school specific) to assess the donor programs’ processes of selecting and receiving donors. Criteria reviewed included consent for education, consent for research, bequeathal policies, weight limit, reasons for refusal, time limit after death, and other policies. Programs of interest included all full body donation programs within the United States that were affiliated with or donated to colleges/universities. A total of 114 programs were analyzed. Programs that were no longer accepting donations were omitted. Information was gathered from published brochures and donation forms, as well as, direct inquiry with programs. Any information that could not be found through the consent forms or on the website was obtained by placing a call to the office. This was repeated for each donation program and the results were analyzed to compare the process, extent, and development of cadaver lab donation programs. All programs provided consent forms that specifically included the use for education. Consent for research was documented in 102 (89%) of the programs. For statewide programs, donors could request a specific school, although their desire was not guaranteed. In every program, donors were able to fill out donation forms in advance. In addition to individual bequeathal, many programs also allow donation by the next of kin. The majority of programs (55%) had a weight and or a BMI limit with the average of 240 pounds. Forty‐four (39%) programs had no weight limit but denied donors based on a BMI above 30. 5. Only 4% programs had no weight requirement and would evaluate the donors’ eligibility once the body was received. The most commonly cited reasons for refusal were autopsy, infectious disease, recent surgery, trauma, and malnourishment/obesity. Costs incurred to donate ranged from being free of cost to $750. At time of death, most facilities had a regimen of when they needed to receive the donation. All facilities requested to be notified as soon as possible and preferred receipt of the body anywhere between two and 168 hours from the time of death. A review of the donor programs within the US revealed mostly consistencies across policies. However, the biggest variable was related to cost. Future studies should look at the amount of donations each program receives and determine correlations between the aforementioned policies. Looking into ways to streamline the donation process and procedures would make it easier for potential donors to maximize their options and for all involved to be informed.