“I think there’s a big strong belief in [...] the community … and maybe it’s in the world at large that somehow the doctors are more concerned about harvesting the organs than what’s best for the patient.”1 In the past 45 years, organ and tissue recovery and transplantation have moved from the occasional and experimental to a standard of care for end-stage organ failure; receiving an organ transplant is for many the only opportunity for increased quantity and/or quality of life. The increasing prevalence of diseases such as viral hepatitis, diabetes, and hypertension has significantly increased the incidence of end-organ failure. Additionally, surgical advances have permitted less stringent qualification criteria, so that people of advanced age or patients who may be in a physiologically fragile state are now eligible to be organ recipients. These changes have created a significant demand for organs.

The several articles in this special issue on organ donation after circulatory determination of death or, as it is often put, donation after cardiac death (DCD), draw lessons from different kinds of experience in order to guide efforts in the U.S. to develop or refine policies for DCD. One lesson comes from a major and, by many measures, successful experimental DCD program in Washington, D.C. in the 1990s. Another lesson comes from European countries that have adopted presumed-consent legislation, a form of “opt out” that facilitates DCD as well as donation after neurological determination of death (DND). Another lesson, from the perspective of critical care medicine in Canada, attends to the implications of viewing a dying patient, undergoing resuscitative procedures, as a potential organ donor. A final lesson sketches implications of legislation and court cases in the U.S., often involving DND, for initiating temporary organ preservation (TOP) in DCD programs before consent has been obtained for organ donation. Some of these lessons are optimistic about the prospects for DCD, especially if certain steps are taken, while others are more cautious, particularly because of the costs and risks involved in DCD.

Worldwide, obesity has become a major cause of preventable death, disease, and disability. While the epidemic of obesity is a significant public health issue in many developed nations, the United States has the highest prevalence of obesity among adults and children internationally. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) estimates that over 60 percent of U.S. adults are overweight or obese. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “overweight” refers to adults whose body mass index (BMI), a number calculated using weight and height measurements, is between 25 and 29.9. “Obese” refers to adults whose BMI is 30 or higher. Among American children and adolescents, approximately 17 percent are overweight.

With new, effective, and expensive health care services, the American health care sector has become an even greater source of business and wealth opportunities. All kinds of health care providers and suppliers are competing for patients and dollars. The key to wealth in today’s health care sector is the physician. Only physicians can certify to third-party payers that health care services, medical devices, or pharmaceutical products are necessary for patient care. That certification initiates the process by which the item, service, or treatment modality is ordered, delivered, and paid for. Thus, organizations that can exert control over physicians stand to gain financially.

The Helsinki Declaration, first published in 1964, is the universally accepted standard for ethical behavior in research involving human subjects. The Declaration was formulated in response to the abuses of human subjects by the scientists in Nazi Germany and to update the Nuremberg Code. Amended in 1975, 1983, 1989, 1996, and 2000, the Declaration provides the foundation for the United States federal regulations for research involving human subjects.

To conform to standards developed in the Declaration, a researcher must fulfill the following: (1) respect the autonomy of the individual; (2) promote and safeguard the individual’s health; (3) provide informed consent without coercion; (4) take special measures with vulnerable populations; (5) compare new therapies to the best current therapies; (6) have a thorough scientific knowledge of the subject; (7) assess risk versus benefit of the intervention; (8) perform studies that will ultimately benefit the population involved in the research; (9) accurately report their findings; and (10) fully disclose ethical concerns in their research protocols.

The concept of brain death evolved because advancements in medical science permitted unprecedented artificial maintenance of vital body functions by external means. Although the concept of brain death is accepted clinically, ethically, and legally in the United States, there is no national standard for the determination of brain death. There is evidence that variability and inconsistency in the process of determining brain death exist both in clinical settings and in State statutes. Several studies demonstrate that medical personnel determine brain death in variable ways, and have variable understandings of the definition of brain death. The declaration of death has significant legal consequences such as probate proceedings and liability issues for wrongful death. Inconsistencies in the determination of death may therefore be medically, ethically, and legally problematic.