Concerns Regarding Organ Donation From Prisoners With Death Penalties: Perspectives of Health Professionals in Taiwan and Mainland China

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to compare the dilemmas of using organs from prisoners with death penalties (PDP) from the perspectives of organ transplant health professionals (OTHP) from Taiwan (TW) and Mainland China (MC). Materials and Methods A purposive sample including TW's OTHP (including transplant surgeons, nurses, researchers, social workers, and medical religious and legal experts), and MC's OTHP (including surgeons and nurses) was obtained in this qualitative research. TW's subjects received face-to-face interviews, and MC's subjects received telephone interviews due to limited communication opportunities. Data were analyzed by content analysis. Results A total of 105 subjects participated in this project (TW n = 99, MC n = 6). They were surgeons (n = 18: TW n = 14, MC n = 4), registered nurses (n = 42: TW n = 40, MC n = 2), OT coordinating nurses (n = 10 TW), OT researchers (n = 5 TW), social workers (n = 10 TW), medical religious experts (n = 15 TW), and medical legal experts (n = 5 TW). The following 8 ethical dilemmas were reported: (1) questionable legitimacy of PDP motivation (TW 100%, MC 100%); (2) recipients' worries about public discrimination (TW 89%, MC 50%); (3) difficulties in approaching PDP (TW 100%); (4) hesitation of HP and volunteers in helping PDP (TW 37%); (5) questionable social contribution of PDP as donor sources (TW 32%); (6) complex legal details of PDP issues (TW 26%); (7) potential threat from PDP families (TW 23%); and (8) difficulties in helping PDP families cope with post-organ donation syndrome (TW 11%). Conclusions Five suggestions were developed in managing these challenges: (1) TW OTHP may empower their basic social science knowledge and empirical competence; (2) TW government may form a task force wherein OTHP leaders are encouraged to foster interdisciplinary collaborations with the public within short-, mid-, and long-term time frames; (3) TW and MC may establish evidence-based center(s) to provide systematic literature reviews for clinical guidance, policy making, and educational resources; (4) TW and MC may try to improve the quality of PDP organ harvesting and donation practice in jails/health institutes; and (5) TW and MC may develop reliable communication systems to share experiences of quality care for PDP, and to evaluate the appraisals both pro and con from multidisciplinary societies and the public, if available.