Regulation of animal experimentation.

This article examines the nature of the controversy between animal activists and the scientific community over the need for and desirability of additional regulation of animal experimentation. We critically review the existing federal and state regulatory environment and discuss a number of proposals for new federal legislation for regulating the use of animals in scientific experimentation. We identify and discuss three factors that encompass the issues that are at the core of the controversy and use these to suggest a conceptual framework in which to analyze schemes for regulating animal experimentation. Finally, we discuss the implications that such regulation will have for animal experimentation and conclude that it is neither necessary nor desirable.

KIE: The authors review the current controversy between animal activists and the scientific community over the use of animals in research and the regulation of such research. They examine existing statutes and proposed federal legislation and conclude that these satisfy neither side. Overcast and Sales argue that animal experimentation regulations must balance three factors which they identify as being at the core of the controversy: (1) benefit to the animal subject or to animals generally, (2) infliction of suffering and restriction of behavior, and (3) benefit to human society. According to this conceptual framework, the authors conclude, additional regulation is neither necessary nor desirable.

Patient selection for heart transplantation: when is a discriminating choice discrimination?

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination against the handicapped in any program receiving federal funds. With its implementing regulations, Section 504 may well apply to the selection of patients for medical treatments. This article examines patient selection for heart transplantation, in light of the Rehabilitation Act and its previous application in similar (but non-medical) contexts. With the growing need to allocate scarce medical resources comes a need to examine carefully the legal bounds for patient-selection procedures.

KIE: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination against the handicapped in any program receiving federal funds. The authors explore how the Rehabilitation Act and its implementing regulations may apply to current methods of patient selection for heart transplants. They also discuss some of the difficulties in applying Section 504 to determine who is a "qualified" handicapped individual in other situations, as exemplified in legal issues that have arisen in medical school admissions policies.

Malpractice issues in heart transplantation.

As organ transplantation procedures become accepted as standard medical practice, it is anticipated that the frequency of liability claims against transplant care providers will increase. This article examines current statutory and common law analyses of malpractice issues in transplantation, with particular attention given to issues of informed consent as they arise both for the organ donor and donee.

Problems in the identification of potential organ donors. Misconceptions and fallacies associated with donor cards.

A survey of organ procurement programs and district attorneys' offices was undertaken in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to determine to what extent organ donor cards were effective in obtaining organs for purposes of transplantation. Results of the survey revealed that all 50 states and the District of Columbia have adopted some form of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA), but in 47 states, even when a signed donor card is available, surgeons still require family approval for removal of organs despite the fact that the provisions of the UAGA do not require this. In addition, it was found that while 44 states have a provision on their permanent drivers' licenses for organ donation, no state requires drivers to indicate whether they want to donate organs. While there is little information on the number of persons who actually carry donor cards, four states indicated that between 1.7% and 8.5% of their drivers were designated as donors. In Colorado, however, it was reported that 60% of all drivers are designated as donors. Nevertheless, in all states it was determined that few actual donors were carrying donor cards at the time of their death. It must therefore be concluded that while donor cards are an excellent educational medium and certainly facilitate the activities of transplant coordination, they are not an effective means of substantially increasing the supply of organs for transplantation.

KIE: A survey of organ procurement programs and district attorneys' offices in every state and the District of Columbia was conducted to determine how effective donor cards were in obtaining organs for transplantation. The authors discovered that, although all jurisdictions have adopted some form of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act and most have provisions for donor documentation on driver's licenses, there has been no substantial increase in the organ supply. Organ procurement appears to be hampered by current methods of card distribution, problems with maintaining referral networks, and uncertainties about the legal status of donor cards which have led hospitals to add a requirement for next-of-kin consent.

Item recognition following a multiple-item study trial for young and middle-aged adults.

The presence study contrasted young and middle-aged subjects on two components of a recognition memory task (a modified verbal discrimination task) that differed in level of difficulty. No age decrement was found for the easier component requiring discriminability between the oldness and newness of items. In addition, age was not a factor in determining the effects of prior relevance or irrelevance of item information on old-new discriminability. An age decrement was found for the more difficult component requiring discriminability in terms of an old item's prior function in the study list. The decrement occurred for the identification of prior function of both right and wrong items.