DOCSLIB.ORG

What Makes Killing for Organs Wrong? a Philosophical Defense of the 'Dead Donor' Rule

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Makes Killing for Organs Wrong? a Philosophical Defense of the 'Dead Donor' Rule University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations 2018 What Makes Killing for Organs Wrong? A Philosophical Defense of the ‘Dead Donor’ Rule Adam Omelianchuk University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Omelianchuk, A.(2018). What Makes Killing for Organs Wrong? A Philosophical Defense of the ‘Dead Donor’ Rule. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4610 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. What Makes Killing for Organs Wrong? A Philosophical Defense of the ‘Dead Donor’ Rule by Adam Omelianchuk Bachelor of Science University of Northwestern, 2009 Master of Arts Biola University, 2013 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2018 Accepted by: Christopher O. Tollefsen, Major Professor Jennifer A. Frey, Committee Member George Khushf, Committee Member Jeffrey P. Bishop, Committee Member Cheryl L. Addy, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School Copyright © 2018 by Adam Omelianchuk All rights reserved. ii Abstract The purpose of my dissertation is to give a philosophic defense of the so-called “dead donor” rule (DDR) in transplant ethics, something that is sorely lacking in the current literature on the topic. Part of my project is concerned with the rule’s correct formulation: What exactly does it forbid? I answer that it is primarily concerned with prohibiting the killing of the donor for his or her organs, and that it need not be concerned with requiring that the donor be dead before surgery begins (as important as that might be). What is morally important is that surgery not be the proximate cause of death. Historically, this flows out of the concern to be in compliance with homicide law and the longstanding norm that doctors should not kill their patients for any reason. As I see it, homicide law and the norms against physician-arranged death is based on an overarching norm that calls for the respect for human life, even in its waning form, because every human life has a fundamental and ineliminable dignity. Hence, I defend the following argument: (1) transplant protocols that would have us secure the donor’s death would have us kill someone for their organs; (2) killing someone for their organs disrespects the worth of someone; (3) no act that disrespects the worth of someone is permissible; (4) therefore, protocols that would have us secure the donor’s death are impermissible. This deductive approach to the issue indicates my intention to defend a moral absolute: It is wrong for transplant surgeons to kill their donors always and everywhere — even with their consent. iii I defend this argument in each chapter. I begin with an analysis of our nature and our deaths. I contend that the answer to the question “What are we?” is the answer, “a human organism” and that “death” marks the end of the biological life of a human organism, not a psychological entity distinct from a human organism. I then defend the currently accepted neurological criterion as being sufficient for determining death. Next, I clarify what is meant by “transplant protocol” and “kills” and what it is to kill someone “for their organs.” Along the way, I contend for a theory of intention that seeks to balance out our first- and third-personal perspectives with respect to determining what counts as an intentional action. Moving to the second premise, I argue that the fundamental problem with lethal transplant surgery, to which I assume the donor consents, is that it bestows more worth on the organs than the donor who has them. At stake is the very basis of human equality, which is an ineliminable dignity that each of us has in virtue of having a rational nature. To allow mortal harvesting would be to make our worth contingent upon variable quality of life of judgments that can only be based on properties that come in degrees. Thus, rejecting the ban on killing donors comes at the expense of our egalitarian principles, which require equal treatment insofar as protections from being killed are concerned. In short, the ban on killing is a matter of respect. I end by explaining why this respect and our egalitarian principles require this treatment, and why it is at least “virtually” absolute if not categorically absolute (the third premise). The fundamental problem with non-absolutist systems of morality is that they only superficially differ from consequentialism, a moral theory most bioethicists are loath to accept. I give some reasons why consequentialism is inadequate, and explore options iv for grounding the DDR as a moral absolute. Yet my case does not depend on the falsity of consequentialism, since a rule-consequentialist could hold that the DDR is “virtually” absolute because upholding it produces the best outcomes. I explore some of the reasons why this may be so. In any event, we have good reason to think that protocols that would have us secure the donor’s death are impermissible. v Preface Typically, whenever anything is written about transplant ethics, the stark difference between the number of people in need of healthy organs and the number of people who get them is noted.1 Then it is inferred from the tragic disparity between the short supply and high demand of healthy organs that there is an urgent imperative to increase their number. Various strategies are then explored to do this. Some say we should allow organs to be bought and sold (Matas 2008). Others who want to stay within the charitable giving model suggest that consent to donate should be presumed unless one has previously “opted out” (Thaler and Sunstein 2009, chap. 11). A more aggressive strategy is just to conscript organs regardless of the wishes of those who are made to supply them (Harris 2002). Still others, who resist changing our donation and consent- giving practices, advocate for revising the definition of death so as to include those who have irreversibly lost consciousness as potential organ sources (Veatch 2010, 322). Those who hesitate to further revise the definition of death reject the rule that vital organs should not be removed from living patients and that “organ donation euthanasia” should be permitted (Miller, Truog, and Brock 2010; Wilkinson and Savulescu 2012). While it is routinely acknowledged that any one of these proposals would require a radical shift in our understanding of transplant ethics, we are left with the impression that almost 1 At the time of this writing, the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network website of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says there is over 120,000 people in need of a life-saving organ; in 2015, there were 15,064 donors who supplied organs for 30, 973 transplants (accessed March, 21, 2016). vi anything is better than the status quo. So great is the imperative to maximize the organ supply that no time-honored belief in medical ethics, whether it be concern for bodily integrity, informed consent, economic fairness, the wrongness of killing, or even the nature of life and death, is safe from critical scrutiny. While there is much to be said for and against all of these proposals, it is the revision to the wrongness of killing that concerns me the most: I do not think there is anything wrong with the status quo’s prohibition against donors being killed for their organs. For the last twenty-five years the so-called “dead donor-rule” (or DDR) has been the object of an increasingly intense scrutiny. While the content of the rule is not always precisely understood, the rough version is that retrieving organs for transplant should not come at the expense of the donor’s life, and so vital organs like the liver, heart, or lungs should not be extracted unless the donor is dead. A chorus of discontent with the rule has been voiced by a small, but growing group of doctors, lawyers, and philosophers who believe it is permissible for transplant protocols to be the cause of death for donors of vital organs. The reasons for this are many and varied, as we shall see, but all who reject the DDR have in common the concern for harvesting the healthiest organs possible, the reasonable assumption being that living donors at the margins of life are a healthier source of organs than freshly dead ones. My twofold aim is to first challenge those who believe that the moment of the donor’s death is not morally important in the context of organ donation, and that the donor’s death can be licitly secured by transplant surgery protocols, and secondly to defend a version of the DDR that specifically forbids killing the donor as a sound moral policy. The reasons for this will unfold, but to prime the pump a bit, I shall begin by illustrating them with a sad but thankfully untrue story. vii An infant boy named Joey, who was dying from causes related to birth asphyxia, could not be saved. Hoping to lessen the tragedy of the situation, Joey’s grief-stricken parents quickly made provisions for Joey to become an organ donor so that they might spare the life of another little one in need. As it happened, there was such a little one in need named Tommy who was at the same hospital at the same time.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Immunosuppressive Effects in Infection
    I Volume 63 January 1970 I1I J- 6 JAN'7O Section of Clinical ~~~~~~~~~ Immunology & Allergy President Professor Sir Michael Woodruff FRCS FRS Meeting April 14 1969 Immunosuppressive Effects in Infection Dr M H Salaman Measles: In 1908 von Pirquet noticed that the (Department ofPathology, Royal College tuberculin reaction in tuberculous children be- ofSurgeons oJ England, came negative during an attack of measles, and London) that afterwards tuberculosis often advanced rapidly. Later work has confirmed his observa- Immunodepression by tions on tuberculin sensitivity by more sensitive Mammalian Viruses and Plasmodia methods (Mellman & Wetton 1963, Brody & McAlister 1964, Starr & Berkovitch 1964), and it Depression of immune responses by viruses is has been shown (Smithwick & Berkovitch 1966) receiving increasing though much belated atten- that measles virus, added to lymphocytes of tion. Early reports (von Pirquet 1908, Bloomfield tuberculin-positive patients, prevents the mito- & Mateer 1919) were forgotten and the subject genic response to tuberculin PPD, but not the neglected till 1960 when Old and his colleagues response to phytohmmagglutinin (PHA). noticed that the hmemolysin response to sheep erythrocytes (SE) was depressed in mice infected Rubella: In infants with congenital rubella there with Friend's leukeemogenic virus (FV), and is no gross defect of antibody formation, but their Gledhill (1961) found that FV and Moloney virus lymphocytes do not respond to PHA (Alford both enhanced the pathogenicity of mouse 1965, Bellanti et al. 1965, Soothill et al. 1966). hepatitis virus. Since then reports of immuno- Normal lymphocytes treated with rubella virus in depression by a wide variety of viruses, both vitro lose their PHA-responsiveness.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of the First Kidney Transplantation
    165+3 14 mm "Service to society is the rent we pay for living on this planet" The History of the Joseph E. Murray, 1990 Nobel-laureate who performed the first long-term functioning kidney transplantation in the world First Kidney "The pioneers sacrificed their scientific life to convince the medical society that this will become sooner or later a successful procedure… – …it is a feeling – now I am Transplantation going to overdo - like taking part in creation...” András Németh, who performed the first – a European Overview Hungarian renal transplantation in 1962 E d i t e d b y : "Professor Langer contributes an outstanding “service” to the field by a detailed Robert Langer recording of the history of kidney transplantation as developed throughout Europe. The authoritative information is assembled country by country by a generation of transplant professionals who knew the work of their pioneer predecessors. The accounting as compiled by Professor Langer becomes an essential and exceptional reference document that conveys the “service to society” that kidney transplantation has provided for all mankind and that Dr. Murray urged be done.” Francis L. Delmonico, M.D. Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital Past President The Transplantation Society and the Organ Procurement Transplant Network (UNOS) Chair, WHO Task Force Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation The History of the First Kidney Transplantation – a European Overview European a – Transplantation Kidney First the of History The ISBN 978-963-331-476-0 Robert Langer 9 789633 314760 The History of the First Kidney Transplantation – a European Overview Edited by: Robert Langer SemmelweisPublishers www.semmelweiskiado.hu Budapest, 2019 © Semmelweis Press and Multimedia Studio Budapest, 2019 eISBN 978-963-331-473-9 All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • 160528 Dr. Edgar Franke
    Prof. Dr. J. Floege • Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen Universitätsklinikum • Medizinische Klinik II • Pauwelsstr. 30 • 52074 Aachen Geschäftsstelle Seumestr. 8 10245 Berlin Dr. Edgar Franke Ausschuss für Gesundheit Telefon: 030 52137269 Deutscher Bundestag Telefax: 030 52137270 Platz der Republik 1 E-Mail: [email protected] 11011 Berlin www.dgfn.eu Berlin, 29.5.2016 Vorstand: Prof. Dr. J. Floege (Präsident) Rheinisch-Westfälische Sehr geehrter Herr Dr. Franke, Technische Hochschule Aachen Universitätsklinikum Medizinische Klinik II, die Dt. Gesellschaft für Nephrologie bedankt sich für die Gelegenheit Nephrologie und Klinische einer Stellungnahme zum geplanten Transplantationsregister. Immunologie Pauwelsstr. 30 Wir begrüßen die Initiative eines bundesweiten Transplantationsregisters 52074 Aachen ausdrücklich, möchten aber unter Bezugnahme auf das mit Frau Prof. Dr. Elke Telefon: 0241 8089530 Schäffner am 15.4.16 geführte Obleutegespräch an dieser Stelle erneut auf Telefax: 0241 8082446 E-Mail: [email protected] einen Umstand hinweisen, der unserer Ansicht nach in dem bisherigen Gesetzesentwurf zu kurz greift, die Verknüpfung eines Prof. Dr. K. Amann Transplantationsregisters mit einem Dialyseregister. Prof. Dr. M. D. Alscher Prof. Dr. A. Kribben Aus folgenden Gründen halten wir eine solche Datenverknüpfung für Dr. T. Weinreich unerlässlich: Kuratorium: • Die Nephrologie ist in der Transplantationslandschaft einzigartig, da es Prof. Dr. A. Kribben flächendeckend und jahre/jahrzehntelang Nierenersatzverfahren gibt, die (Vorsitzender)
    [Show full text]
  • American Osler Society
    49th Annual Meeting of the American Osler Society Sir William Osler, quoting Leigh Hunt, “Abou Ben Adhem” Sunday, May 12th – Wednesday May 15th, 2019 Hotel Omni Mont-Royal Montréal, Canada Hotel Omni Mont-Royal 49th Annual Meeting of the AMERICAN OSLER SOCIETY Sunday, May 12th – Wednesday, May 15th, 2019 Hotel Omni Mont-Royal Montréal, Canada Credit: Karen Koshof The Osler Niche contains the ashes of Sir William Osler and Lady Osler, as well as those of Osler’s dear cousin and first Librarian of the Osler Library, W.W. Francis. The Niche was designed with Osler’s wishes in mind. Its realization was not far off the vision imagined by Osler’s alter ego Egerton Yorrick Davis in “Burrowings of a Bookworm”: I like to think of my few books in an alcove of a fire-proof library in some institution that I love; at the end of the alcove an open fire-place and a few easy chairs, and on the mantelpiece an urn with my ashes and my bust or portrait through which my astral self, like the Bishop at St. Praxed’s, could peek at the books I have loved, and enjoy the delight with which kindred souls still in the flesh would handle them. Course Objectives Upon conclusion of this program, participants should be able to: Describe new research findings in the history of medicine. Outline the evolution of medicine in a particular disease. List professional contributions made by others in medicine. Intended Audience The target audience includes physicians and others interested in Osler, medical history and any of the medically oriented humanities who research and write on a range of issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Alumni Journal, School of Medicine Loma Linda University Publications
    Loma Linda University TheScholarsRepository@LLU: Digital Archive of Research, Scholarship & Creative Works Alumni Journal, School of Medicine Loma Linda University Publications 9-2018 Alumni Journal - Volume 89, Number 3 Loma Linda University School of Medicine Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/sm-alumni-journal Part of the Other Medicine and Health Sciences Commons Alumni JOURNALAlumni Association, School of Medicine of Loma Linda University September–December 2018 Graduation 2018 All the faces, residency information, and awards from graduation weekend INSIDE: Engaging the Next Generation • Department Reports: Radiation Medicine and Surgery TABLE of CONTENTS Alumni JOURNAL September–December 20172018 Though the campus may change, Volume 88,89, Number 3 Editor Burton A. Briggs ’66 Associate Editors you will always be family. DonnaRolanda L. R. Carlson Everett ’69 ’92 RolandaDarrell J. R. Ludders Everett ’67 ’92 Consulting Editor/Historian Dennis E. Park, MA, ’07-hon Managing Editor 18 Contributing Editor Chris Clouzet Karl P. Sandberg ’74 Assistant Editor ChristinaManaging Lee Editor Chris Clouzet Design & Layout ChrisDesign Clouzet & Layout CalvinChris Clouzet Chuang Calvin Chuang Advertising 21 AdvertisingNancy Yuen, MPW 26 CirculationAndrea Schröer CirculationA.T. Tuot A.T. Tuot Features Departments The Alumni JOURNAL is published 16 The Unwritten Curriculum 2 From the Editor Thethree Alumni times JOURNALa year by the is published threeAlumni times Association, a year by the H. Del Schutte Jr. ’84 on how he received 5 From the President more than just academic training at LLUSM AlumniSchool ofAssociation, Medicine of 6 From the Dean SchoolLoma Linda of Medicine University of 18 Engaging the Next Generation 11245 Anderson St., Suite 200 8 This and That Loma Linda University in the Pursuit of Medicine 11245Loma Linda, Anderson CA 92354 St., Suite 200 Gina J.
    [Show full text]
  • College News
    College news Meetings of Council Professors and Lecturers for 1975/76 were elected At the Extraordinary Meeting of the Council held (see p. i 68). on gth July Sir Rodney Smith KBE, President, was The following were elected as new Members of in the Chair. the Court of Examiners: Professor N L Browse Professor Emerich Polak, of Prague, was admitted and Mr C V Mann (General Surgery) and Mr to the Honorary Fellowship of the College. V T Hammond (Otolaryngology). In addition Mr Dr Denis Dooley, Dr Frederic Kohn, Dr R G W R I, B Beare, Mr C W S F Manning, Mr J P Ollerenshaw, Mr Giles Romanes, and Mr Norman Mitchell, and Mr J N Ward-McQuaid (General Rowe were admitted to the Fellowship by election. Surgery), Mr R F Macnab Jones (Otolaryngology), Diplomas of Fellowship were granted in accord- and Mr Lorimer Fison, Mr M J Gilkes, Mr C G ance with the pass list (see p. I 69). Tulloh, and Mr J Winstanley (Ophthalmology) were Diplomates were presented in order of medical re-elected for second terms of three years. and dental schools as follows: Fellows, Fellows in The Nuffield Prize was awarded to Dr David Dental Surgery, Fellows in the Faculty of Anaes- John Gwilt. thetists, Members, Licentiates in Dental Surgery. Sir Michael Woodruff FRS FRCS then delivered Faculty of Anaesthetists an address to the new diplomates (see p. I 66). It was noted that the following had been admit- ted to the Honorary Fellowship in the Faculty: Professor Sir Geoffrey Organe Dr Vernon Hall At the Quiarterly Meeting of the Council held on Professor W D M Paton FRS I oth July Sir Rodney Smith KBE was re-elected and that Dr S C Cullen, Professor J Severinghaus, President and Mr R H Franklin CBE and Mr R S and Dr C H Boyd had been admitted to the Handley OBE were re-elected as Vice-Presidents for FFARCS by election.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas E. Starzl
    145 MY THIRTY-FIVE YEAR VIEW OF ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION Thomas E. Starzl Address: Department of Surgery Falk Clinic University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine 3601 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 ----~-----------------. 146 Thomas E. Starzl 147 MY THIRTY-FIVE YEAR VIEW OF ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION Thomas E. Starzl In my earlier historical reassessments in 1936 by the Russian, Yu Yu Voronoy (13, (1-3) and those of Caine (4,5), Murray (6), translation provided in 10). The technique Moore (7), and Groth (8), the dawn of of renal transplantation which became transplantation was defined as the turn of today's standard was developed inde­ this century, in part because these reviews pendently by three different French sur­ emphasized kidney transplantation. Kahan geons, Charles Dubost (14), Rene Kuss has exposed the incompleteness of this (15),and Marceau Serve lie (16) and perspective by tracing the roots of reported in 1951. A number of the kidneys transplantation into antiquity (9). Not­ were taken from criminals shortly after their withstanding the early traces, evolution of execution by guillotine. John Merrill, the the modern field is a phenomenon of the Boston nephrologist had seen the French last 40 years. During the first part of this operation while travelling in Europe in the time, I picked up the trail of renal transplan­ early 1950s as was later mentioned by the tation and sta.rted a new one with liver re­ surgeon, David Hume (17) in his description placement. From 1958 onward, liver of the beginning (in 1951) of the Peter Bent transplantation played an increasingly Brigham kidney transplant program.
    [Show full text]
  • Eg Phd, Mphil, Dclinpsychol
    This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. Factors influencing cold ischaemia time in deceased donor kidney transplants Sussie Shrestha MBBS, MRCS A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Edinburgh 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am deeply indebted to my supervisor Professor Lorna Marson, without whose unwavering faith, encouragement and support throughout the course of the study this would not have come to fruition. I am also indebted to Professor Philip Dyer for his invaluable guidance, motivation and encouragement. I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Christopher Watson, Dr Craig Taylor and Professor John Forsythe for their help, advice, support and feedback that helped shape the study. My most sincere thanks to Ms Rachel Johnson, Ms Lisa Mumford and the NHS Blood and Transplant statistics team for their help and guidance with the data and statistical analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Jon Van Rood the Pioneer and His Personal View on the Early
    Transplant Immunology 52 (2019) 1–26 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Transplant Immunology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trim Review Jon van Rood: The pioneer and his personal view on the early developments T of HLA and immunogenetics ⁎ Martine J. Jagera, , Anneke Brandb, Frans H.J. Claasc a Dept. of Ophthalmology, LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands b Sanquin, Leiden, The Netherlands c Dept. of Immunohematology and Blood Transfusion, LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands ABSTRACT A single observation in a patient with an unusual transfusion reaction led to a life-long fascination with immunogenetics, and a strong wish to improve the care for patients needing a transplantation. In 2017, Jon van Rood, one of the pioneers in the field of HLA and immunogenetics of transplantation, passed away. Several obituaries have appeared describing some of the highlights of his career. However, the details of the early developments leading among others to the routine use of HLA as an important parameter for donor selection in organ- and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation are largely unknown to the community. After his retirement as Chair of the Department of Immunohaematology and Blood Transfusion (IHB) in 1991, Jon van Rood wrote regularly in the “Crosstalk”, the departmental journal, and gave his personal view on the history of the discovery and implications of HLA. These autobiographic descriptions were originally written in Dutch and have been translated, while texts from other sources and the relevant references have been added to illustrate the historical perspective. This special issue of Transplant Immunology combines the autobiographic part, Jon's own version of the history, with other facts of his scientific life and the impact of his findings on the field of clinical transplantation.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Kidney Exchange: Analysis and Background Papers from the Perspective of the Right to Health
    University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Anthropology: Undergraduate Student Scholarship Department of Anthropology 12-2017 Global Kidney Exchange: Analysis and Background Papers from the Perspective of the Right to Health Alejandro Cerón University of Denver Kiaryce Bey University of Denver Kelly Bonk University of Denver Ellie Carson University of Denver Emilia Chapa UnivFollowersity this of and Denv additionaler works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/anthropology_student Part of the International Public Health Commons, Medical Humanities Commons, and the Social and See next page for additional authors Cultural Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Cerón, Alejandro; Bey, Kiaryce; Bonk, Kelly; Carson, Ellie; Chapa, Emilia; Cohen, Louisa; Crockford, Katie; Cuda, Rachel; Injac, Sebastian; Kirby, Kajsa; Leon-Alvarez, Daniela; Looney, Mackenzie; McBeth, Kendall; Pham, Winnie; Smith, Rose; Soltero Gutierrez, Margarita; Sugura, Katherine; Yu, Alexander; and Lazier, Flinn, "Global Kidney Exchange: Analysis and Background Papers from the Perspective of the Right to Health" (2017). Anthropology: Undergraduate Student Scholarship. 3. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/anthropology_student/3 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Anthropology at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology: Undergraduate Student Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact
    [Show full text]
  • Resident Handout
    Resident Handout Division of Transplantation Pathology University of Pittsburgh Medical Center July 2005 for private use of residents only- not for public distribution Table of Contents Anatomic Transplantation Pathology Rotation Clinical Responsibilities of the Division ........................................................4 Categorizations of Specimens and Structure of Signout.............................…4 Resident Responsibilities.................................................................................5 Learning Resources.........................................................................................6 Transplantation Pathology on the World-Wide Web......................................6 Weekly Schedule ............................................................................................7 Staff Locations and Telephone Numbers........................................................8 Background Articles Landmarks in Transplantation ...................…..................................................9 History of Transplant Immunobiology Part 1....…..........................................19 History of Transplant Immunobiology Part 2....…..........................................25 Kidney Grading Systems Banff 97 Diagnostic Grades (IA, IB etc.) .............................….....................33 Banff 97 Components (I t v g etc.) ....................................…........................35 Readings Banff 97 Working Classification of Renal Allograft Pathology….................38 Role of Donor Kidney Biopsies
    [Show full text]
  • Book of the Quarter
    Proc. R. Coll. Physicians Edinb. 1998; 28: 119-124 Book of the Quarter NOTHING VENTURE NOTHING WIN Professor Sir Michael Woodruff, Scottish Academic Press, 1996, pp 234 I.F. MACLAREN,* 3 MINTO STREET, EDINBURGH EH9 1RG Over the past 200 years, the two senior professorial Chairs of Surgery in the University of Edinburgh have been occupied by a remarkable series of brilliant surgeons and inspiring teachers, some of whom have also been clinical scientists of the highest distinction, such as Charles Bell, James Syme, Joseph Lister, John Chiene, Alexis Thomson, Harold Stiles, David Wilkie and James Learmonth. For a ten-year period after World War II, the Chair of Systematic Surgery and the Regius Chair of Clinical Surgery were jointly held by Sir James Learmonth but, upon his retirement in 1956, the University decided to separate the two Chairs again and to redefine their academic roles. Prime responsibility for the organisation of undergraduate surgical teaching was transferred to the Regius Chair of Clinical Surgery, and the Chair of Systematic Surgery was reborn under the new designation of the Chair of Surgical Science with an implicit orientation mainly, but by no means entirely, towards research. In his autobiography, Sir Michael Woodruff, who was appointed to this Chair in 1957, tells us that at the time he considered its new title to be ill-chosen, and he records his satisfaction at its reversion to its original designation before his retirement. This is but one of many insights into his academic and scientific philosophy afforded to us by the author of this fascinating book: Sir Michael’s major contributions to biomedical science have enhanced the illustrious reputation of the Edinburgh School of Surgery and have entitled him to a fame equal to that of the most distinguished of his predecessors.
    [Show full text]