Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39150007›Full record

ArticleSociology of health & illness2025

Making organ donation after circulatory death routine: Preserving patienthood and reproducing ways of dying in the intensive care unit.

Jessie Cooper, Zivarna Murphy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jessie CooperDepartment of Health Services Research and Management, School of Health & Psychological Sciences, City St George's, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3295-8593
Zivarna MurphyHull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6792-007X

Funding

City, University of London Pump Priming research grant (internal)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Controlled organ donation after circulatory death (DCD) was re-introduced in the UK in 2008, in efforts to increase rates of organs for transplant. Following reintroduction, there were debates about the ethics of DCD, including whether potential DCD donors receive end-of-life care which is in their best interests. Since this time, DCD has become a routine donor pathway in the NHS. In this article, we present findings from an ethnographic study examining the everyday practices of DCD in two English Trusts. Drawing on the concept of death brokering and Bea's (2020) call to consider organ donation as embedded and routine practice within health care, we look at how DCD is integrated into end-of-life care in intensive care units. We show how DCD is made routine at the end-of-life via the practices of health professionals who create an active separation between discussions about death and donation; reproduce usual ways of doing things in end-of-life care; and respect the distinction between patient/donor, dying and death. In doing so, we argue these function to preserve the patienthood of the potential donor, ensuring DCD operates as an integrated part, and culturally accepted form of, good end-of-life care for potential donors, their relatives, and health professionals alike.

Indexed as

DeathIntensive Care UnitsTerminal CareTissue and Organ ProcurementAnthropology, CulturalEnglandHumansState MedicineTissue DonorsUnited Kingdombioethicsdeath and dyingend of life careintensive careorgan donation

Identifiers

PMID39150007
PMCPMC11684493

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.