Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:24:06.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technology Assessment, Public Policy and Transplantation: A Restrained Appraisal of the Massachusetts Task Force Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

Thomas D. Overcast  and
Roger W. Evans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The February 1985 issue of Law, Medicine & Health Care published excerpts from the Report of the Massachusetts Task Force on Organ Transplantation, along with a report by its chairman, Professor George Annas, and commentary by a number of esteemed scholars and practitioners who were generally complimentary of both the approach and substance of the work of the Task Force. We have thoroughly reviewed the Task Force Report and feel it necessary to take strong exception to a number of points, both procedural and substantive, raised there. In general, we are concerned that the Task Force Report perpetuates and reinforces a number of serious misconceptions about the issues surrounding transplantation that, in turn, lead to conclusions that are both inaccurate and misleading. This situation is most unfortunate be cause the complexities of the issues raised by transplantation require care ful scrutiny, especially where there are empirical data that clearly call into question these often strongly held predispositions. In the following sections we point out what we feel are the major shortcomings of the Massachusetts effort.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , June 1985 , pp. 106 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Report of the Massachusetts Task Force on Organ Transplantation, Department of Public Health, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, October 1984 [hereinafter referred to as Task Force Report]. Sections I, II, IV and VII of the Task Force Report were published in Law, Medicine & Health Care 13(1):8–26 (February 1985).Google Scholar
Annas, G.J., Regulating Heart and Liver Transplants in Massachusetts: An Overview of the Report of the Task Force on Organ Transplantation, Law, Medicine & Health Care 13(1):4 (February 1985) [hereinafter referred to as Annas].Google ScholarPubMed
Casscells, W., A Clinician's View of the Massachusetts Task Force on Organ Transplantation, Law, Medicine & Health Care 13(1):27–28 (February 1985); Pauly, M.V., Equity and Costs, Law, Medicine & Health Care 13(1):28-31 (February 1985); Miller, F.H., Reflections on Organ Transplantation in the United Kingdom, Law, Medicine & Health Care 13(1):31–32 (February 1985); Caplan, A.L., If There's A Will, Is There a Way? Law, Medicine & Health Care 13(1):32–34 (February 1985); Kissick, W.L., Organ Transplantation and the Art of the Possible, Law, Medicine & Health Care 13(1):34–35 (February’ 1985); Skelley, L., Practical Issues in Obtaining Organs for Transplantation, Law, Medicine & Health Care 13(1):35–37 (February 1985); Jonsen, A.R., Organ Transplants and the Principle of Fairness, Law, Medicine & Health Care 13(1):37–39 (February 1985).Google ScholarPubMed
See, Evans, R.W., Issues in Liver Transplantation, Lancet 2(8362):1306 (December 3, 1983); Evans, R.W., Cyclosporine in Cadaveric Renal Transplantation, New England Journal of Medicine 311(2):127 (July 12, 1984); Evans, R.W., Organ Transplantation, Science 222(4621):234 (October 21, 1983) [hereinafter referred to as Organ Transplantation]; Evans, R.W., et al., The Need for and Supply of Donor Hearts for Transplantation, Journal of Heart Transplantation 4(1):57 (November 1984) [hereinafter referred to as Need for Hearts];, Evans, R.W., Manninen, D.L., Hart, L.G., A Comparative Assessment of the Quality of Life of Successful Kidney Transplant Patients According to Source of Graft, Transplantation Proceedings 16(5):1353 (October 1984); Evans, R.W., Garrison, L.P., Manninen, D.L., The National Kidney Dialysis and Kidney Transplantation Study: Study Description, State of Objectives, and Project Significance, Part I, Contemporary Dialysis 3(6):55 (June 1982); Evans, R.W., Garrison, L.P., Manninen, D.L., The National Kidney Dialysis and Kidney Transplantation Study: Study Description, Statement of Objectives, and Project Significance, Part II, Contemporary Dialysis 3(9):36 (September 1982); Evans, R.W., et al., The Quality of Life of End-Stage Renal Disease Patients, New England Journal of Medicine, 312(9):553 (February 28, 1985); Evans, R.W., et al., The Quality of Life of Kidney and Heart Transplant Recipients, Transplantation Proceedings 17(1):1579 (February 1985); Garrison, L.P., Hart, R.W., Manninen, D.L., Income and Poverty Among End-Stage Renal Disease Patients: Results from the National Kidney Dialysis and Kidney Transplantation Study, Health Affairs (in press); Overcast, T.D., et al., Problems in the Identification of Potential Organ Donors: Misconceptions and Fallacies Associated with Donor Cards, Journal of the American Medical Association 251 (12): 1559 (March 23/30. 1984).Google Scholar
Blagg, C.R., Editorial: Dialysis or Transplantation? Journal of the American Medical Association 250(8):1072 (August 26, 1983) (hereinafter referred to as Dialysis or Transplantation], Evans, R.W., Economic and Social Costs of Heart Transplantation, Heart Transplantation 1(3):243 (May 1982) [hereinafter referred to as Costs]; Evans, R.W., Health Care Technology and the Inevitability of Resource Allocation and Rationing Decisions, Part I, Journal of the American Medical Association 249(15):2047 (April 15, 1983); Evans, R.W., Health Care Technology’ and the Inevitability of Resource Allocation and Rationing Decisions, Part II, Journal of the American Medical Association 249(16):2208 (April 22/29, 1983) [hereinafter referred to as Technology]; Evans, R.W., Heart Transplants and Priorities, Lancet 1(8381):852 (April 14, 1984); Evans, R.W., Anderson, A., Perry, B., The National Heart Transplantation Study: An Overview, Heart Transplantation 2(1):85 (November 1982) [hereinafter referred to as Overview of Transplantation Study]; Evans, R.W., Blagg, C.R., Bryan, F.A., Implications for Health Care Policy: A Social and Demographic Profile of Hemodialysis Patients in the United States, Journal of the American Medical Association 245(5):487 (February 6, 1981) [hereinafter referred to as Demographic Profile];, Evans, R.W., et al., Final Report: The National Heart Transplantation Study (Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers, Seattle, WA) (1984) [hereinafter referred to as Final Report]; Frohboese, R., Overcast, T.D., Legal Issues Relating to Health Psychology in Health Psychology: A Discipline and a Profession (Stone, G.C., et al., eds.) (University of Chicago Press, Chicago) (1985) (in press); Overcast, T.D., Merrikin, K.J., Evans, R.W., Malpractice Issues in Heart Transplantation, American Journal of Law & Medicine 10(4):362 (Winter 1985).Google ScholarPubMed
For example, the American Council on Transplantation, the Surgeon General's Conferences, and NIH Consensus Conferences. See also Demographic Profile, supra note 5; Dialysis or Transplantation supra note 5, at 1072–73.Google Scholar
Annas, , supra note 2, at 5.Google Scholar
Task Force Report, supra note 1, at 9.Google Scholar
Landesman, S.H., Ginzburg, H.M., Weiss, S.H., The AIDS Epidemic, New England Journal of Medicine 312(8):521 (February 21, 1985); Centers for Disease Control, Update: Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS)—United States, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 32:688 (1984), Selik, R.M., Haverkos, H.W., Curran, W.J., Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS): Trends in the United States, 1978–1982, American Journal of Medicine 76(3):493 (March 1984).Google ScholarPubMed
Task Force Report, supra note 1 at 9.Google Scholar
See Technology, supra note 5, at 2047-53, 2208–19.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Costs, supra note 5; see also Final Report, supra note 5, at vol. 3; Pauly, supra note 3, at 38.Google Scholar
Annas, , supra note 2, at 6. “[T]he Task Force derived costs of $230,000 to $340,000 per liver transplant patient alive at the end of one year (using a 70 percent survival rate), and $170,000 to $200,000 per one-year survival for heart transplant patients…. Additional years of survival would add from $10,000 to $20,000 in costs per year to these figures.”Google Scholar
Final Report, supra note 5, at vol. 3.Google Scholar
Annas, , supra note 2, at 6.Google Scholar
Final Report, supra note 5, at vol. 3.Google Scholar
See Task Force Report, supra note 1, at 6. Although it is a relatively minor point, we do not agree with the Task Force's assertion that “[o]n the federal level, almost exclusive energy is being devoted to increasing the supply to [sic] transplantable organs by making the organ procurement system more efficient.” Id. Federal support continues at a relatively high level for research on many diverse aspects of transplantation, including most recently the solicitation of proposals for projects concerning the long-term costs, and effectiveness of kidney, bone marrow, and other organ transplantation. 50 Fed. Reg. 4480 (January 30, 1985). See also, Need for Hearts, supra note 4, at 59; Costs, supra note 5, at 250; Final Report, supra note 5, at vol. 2.Google Scholar
Final Report, supra note 5, at vol. 2.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. See also Demographic Profile, supra note 5, at 487.Google Scholar
Annas, , supra note 2, at 7.Google Scholar
Overview of Transplantation Study, supra note 5, at 85; Organ Transplantation, supra note 4, at 234; Final Report, supra note 5.Google Scholar
Organ Transplantation, supra note 4, at 234; Overview of Transplantation Study, supra note 3, at 86; Technology, supra note 5.Google Scholar
Final Report, supra note 5.Google Scholar
Annas, , supra note 2, at 4.Google Scholar
Id. at 7.Google Scholar
Final Report, supra note 5, at vol. 4, ch.34, §3; Overcast, T.D., Sales, B.D., Pollard, M.R., Applying Antitrust Laws to the Professions: Implications for Psychology, American Psychologist 37(5):517 (May 1982); Blumstein, J.F., Rationing Medical Resources: A Constitutional, Legal, and Policy Analysis, Texas Law Review 59(8):1345 (November 1981).Google Scholar
Herbsleb, J., Sales, B.D., Overcast, T.D., Challenging Licensure and Certification, American Psychologist (in press).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Hyde v. Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2, 104 S. Ct. 1551 (1984) (anesthesiologist). Among the specialties currently offered under exclusive staffing arrangements are radiology, nuclear medicine, pathology, anesthesiology, renal dialysis, emergency room service, and major surgery. See Final Report, supra note 5.Google Scholar
Moore, F.D., Letter to the Editor: MGH Trustees Say No to Heart Transplants, New England Journal of Medicine 303(17):999 (October 23, 1980).Google Scholar
See Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 604 n. 33 (1977) (addressing doctors’ assertions that they have a right to administer medical care).Google Scholar
Havighurst, C., Competition in Health Services: Overview, Issues and Answers, Vanderbilt Law Review 34(4):1117, 1148 (May 1981).Google Scholar
Moore, F.D., How Much Cardiac Transplantation—And Where? Heart Transplantation 1(4):254 (August 1982).Google Scholar
For an extended discussion of this issue see Blumstein, J., Rationing Medical Resources: A Constitutional Legal and Policy Analysis, Texas Law Review 59:1345(1981); and Rosenblatt, R., Rationing “Normal” Health Care: The Hidden Legal Issue, Texas Law Review 59:1401 (1981).Google ScholarPubMed
See e.g., Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).Google Scholar
Merrikin, K.J., Overcast, T.D., A Right to Decide to Undergo Particular Medical Procedures as an Aspect of the Right to Privacy: Implications for Regulation of Heart Transplantation and Other Forms of Medical Technology, Journal of Contemporary Law (in press).Google Scholar
See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).Google Scholar
Task Force Report, supra note 1, at 13.Google Scholar
Andrews v. Ballard, 498 F. Supp. 1038 (S.D. Tex. 1980); People v. Privitera, 591 P.2d 919, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 949 (1979); Rutherford v. United States, 438 F. Supp. 1287 (W.D. Okla. 1977), aff'd, 582 F.2d 1234 (10th Cir. 1977), rev'd, 442 U.S. 544 (1979); Suenram v. Society of Valley Hospital. 155 N.J. Super. 593 (1977).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §§6101-6107 (1982).Google Scholar
Final Report, supra note 5, at vol. 4, ch. 32, §2.Google Scholar
See 42 U.S.C. §6103(b)(2) (“any law” exclusion); 42 U.S.C. §6103(b)(1)(A) (“normal operation” exclusion); 42 U.S.C. §6103(b)(1) (“reasonable factors other than age” exception).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §§2000(a)-2000(d)4 (1982).Google Scholar
Merrikin, K.J., Overcast, T.D., Patient Selection for Heart Transplantation and the Federal Handicap Discrimination Law, Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law (in press); Crane, K., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Is It Authority for Federal Intervention in the Area of Medical Decision-Making? Capital University Law Review 13(4):645 (Winter 1984).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §§2000(a)-2000(d)4 (1982) See also 45 C.F.R. §§80.1-80.13 (1984).Google Scholar
See generally, Fullilove v. Klutz nick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980); Lora v. Board of Education of New York, 603 F.2d 248 (2d Cir. 1980); Parent Association of Andrew Jackson High School v. Amback, 598 F.2d 705 (2d Cir. 1979).Google Scholar
Capian, supra note 3, at 32.Google Scholar