Etzioni, Shiri

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) has become a key avenue for expanding the organ donor pool. Many DCD protocols include premortem intravenous heparin to reduce microthrombus formation and preserve graft viability. This presents the plausible risk of premortem bleeding from an intervention that offers no direct therapeutic benefit to the donor. Ethical concerns and moral distress can arise when potential donors have a catastrophic intracranial hemorrhage with ongoing physiological concern for bleeding risk that is not survivable, but do not currently meet brain death criteria. While prior analyses describe premortem interventions in DCD in conceptual or protocol-driven terms, this case report considers the ethical concerns inherent in premortem heparin administration and illustrates how multidisciplinary teams can operationalize ethical safeguards, including transparent communication, attention to surrogate understanding, and separation of end-of-life decisions from donation-related interventions, to mitigate concerns and minimize moral distress. These issues are directly relevant to palliative care clinicians, who frequently support families during end-of-life crises and when there is consideration for organ donation. Through a multidisciplinary and ethically guided approach, this case illustrates how collaborative decision-making and transparent communication can uphold both donor dignity and transplant integrity.

Stiff Person Syndrome (SPS) is a rare, progressive autoimmune neurological disorder characterized by painful spasms, muscle rigidity, and heightened sensitivity to external stimuli. Management often relies on therapies that fall outside standard hospice formularies, creating challenges in end-of-life care for affected individuals. We present the case of a 57-year-old woman with metastatic colorectal cancer and SPS whose primary concern in transitioning to hospice was the risk of symptom destabilization if standard neurological treatments, including intravenous immunoglobulin and intrathecal baclofen, were discontinued. Through close interdisciplinary collaboration among palliative care, neurology, and the hospice team, an individualized plan of care was developed that preserved access to symptom-modifying treatments while aligning with the hospice philosophy. Environmental and pharmacologic strategies—including diazepam, levetiracetam, and anticipatory planning—were employed to address evolving symptoms, resulting in effective symptom control and avoidance of hospital readmission. This case highlights the need for flexible, patient-centered approaches in hospice care for rare neurological conditions like SPS. Continuation of disease-specific therapies for symptom palliation can be ethically and clinically appropriate when integrated with clear goals of care. Adaptable interdisciplinary models are essential to attend to quality of life and support care that is in alignment with patient values at the end of life.