Editors' note: To harvest?: A reality-based ethical dilemma and fictional dialogue

In the humanities section article “To harvest?: A reality-based ethical dilemma and fictional dialogue,” Drs. Smith and Riggs debate the ethics of harvesting a patient's organs if their surrogate wants the organs donated but reports that the patient did not want to be an organ donor and then later revokes the comment about the patient not wanting to be a donor. They question whether the surrogate's willingness to consent should override the possibility that the patient previously dissented and whether a statement made in passing that an individual does not want to be an organ donor represents informed dissent. Dr. Sethi notes that it is challenging to distinguish between uninformed and informed dissent when one cannot speak directly to the individual involved to ascertain whether they were competent and knowledgeable at the time of the dissent. However, he proposes that it may be helpful to interview the patient's other family members about the issue of dissent. Drs. Smith and Riggs voice appreciation for Dr. Sethi's thoughtful response and comment that it is helpful to contemplate ethical controversies in a hypothetical context to be better prepared to address them in real life.