Ethicists and emergency medicine experts are raising concerns over New York City's plan to dispatch the first ambulance service in the country equipped to preserve the organs of the newly deceased.
They question whether the organ-preserving ambulances will create tension among EMTs who may be charged both to save lives and to preserve organs for reuse.
The aim of the Rapid Organ Recovery Ambulance service, city officials say, is to buy precious time for families to decide whether they want their loved ones' organs to be donated to needy patients.
New York City plans to start the service rolling within a month. And the plan, which has already received federal funding, is being eyed as a possibility by other emergency medical departments.
The services provided by such ambulances -- namely, efforts to save the organs of the newly dead without direct consent -- have some concerns among some experts.
"Will raising organ donation follow pronouncement of death, or will people come to know that the organ donation ambulance has been sent, making them wonder if their relative got a full press of rescue care?" said Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. "This is called violating the dead donor rule -- no organ donation [discussion] raised prior to pronouncement of death."
Emergency medicine experts also have questions about the service but see real benefits as well.
"I am fully in favor of the concept of this ambulance; it may very well make more organs available for transplant and thus improve the lives of many people for every deceased person they transport," said Dr. Richard O'Brien, spokesman for the American College of Emergency Physicians.
"How well it will work out remains to be seen."
Maxwell J. Mehlman, director of the Law-Medicine Center at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, says he worries the process could cause distress for family members of decedents if it interferes with their grieving process.
"Would it delay family access to the decedent?" Mehlman said. "Would it physically alter the body in ways that were apparent during the funeral -- [for example, during an] open casket? If so, then some families might object, and some courts might regard the program as violating the family's rights."
The issue of how family members react to the service might even begin well before the funeral.
"I can also easily imagine confusion during which a corpse that is dead has procedures done for preservation of the organs and is whisked away, leaving onlookers and family thinking that the person is still alive, when the EMTs know they are dead," said Bill Allen, associate professor of the Bioethics Program at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Gainesville. "What will they tell bystanders?"
Far more troubling is the idea that emergency medical personnel staffing the ambulances could be faced with a dilemma of either doing everything possible to save a patient, or acting with the chief interest of saving organs.
"If it is an ambulance for the living or the dead, you run into an ethical dilemma," O'Brien said. "The ambulance has an obligation to the people of their service area to go back into service after a call, as soon as possible. This sounds like they may be tied up transporting and working on literally a deceased person, and not be available for others."