This article has been
cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.
Organ donation agency: A discourse analysis of correspondence between donor and organ recipient families.
Sociology of Health & Illness,
de Groot, Jack
van Hoek, Maria
van Leeuwen, Evert
Decision making on organ donation: the dilemmas of relatives of potential brain dead donors.
BMC Medical Ethics,
Would it be ethical to use motivational interviewing to increase family consent to deceased solid organ donation?.
Journal of Medical Ethics,
2. The Human Tissue Act, which got royal assent in November 2004 and was implemented in April 2006 (for transplantation September 2006), states in part 1, section 2, that in the case of a child “appropriate consent means the consent of a person who has parental responsibility for him (the child).” Section 3 states that in the case of an adult “appropriate consent” rests with “a nominated person” or “person who stood in a qualifying relationship to him immediately before he died.” There are a number of criteria listed defining qualifying relationships.
3. Human Tissue Act, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; 2004.
4.Department of Health (DH). Organs for Transplants: A Report from the Organ Donation Taskforce. London: DH; 2008.
5.SqueM, LongT, PayneS, AllardyceD. Why relatives do not donate organs for transplants: "Sacrifice" or "gift of life"?Journal of Advanced Nursing2008;61:134–44.
6. See note 4, DH 2008.
7.Department of Health (DH). End of Life Care Strategy: Promoting High Quality Care for All Adults at the End of Life. London: DH; 2008.
8.RichardsonR. Human dissection and organ transplantation in historical context. In: SqueM, PayneS, eds. Organ and Tissue Donation: An Evidence Base for Practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2007:4–20.
9.GlaserB. The use of secondary analysis by the independent researcher. American Behavioural Scientist1963;6:93–102.
15.FaircloughN. Discourse and Social Change. Oxford: Polity Press; 1992.
16.HallidayMAK. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed.London: Edward Arnold; 1994.
17.Van DijkTA. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society1993;4:249–83.
18.BarkerC, GalasińskiD. Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis. London: Sage; 2001.
19. See note 15, Fairclough 1992.
20. See note 16, Halliday 1994.
21. See note 16, Halliday 1994.
22. See note 16, Halliday 1994.
23. For more accessible reading, we decided to simplify the transcription to the absolute minimum, leaving only the basic intonation signatures (full stops) as well as noting significant pauses (dots in round brackets) and backchannel responses. Omitted text is noted in square brackets. Italicized text indicates the fragments to which we want to draw the readers’ attention.
24.HallidayMAK. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold; 1978.
25.HallidayMAK, HasanR. Language, Context, and Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1985.
26.GalasińskiD. Men and the Language of Emotions. Basingstoke: Palgrave; 2004.
27. Epistemic modality is the capacity of clauses to express the speaker’s certainty, from very low to very high (see note 16, Halliday 1994). Modalization introduces an aspect of degree and thus makes propositions weaker or stronger.
We would like to thank NHSBT (formerly UK Transplant) for funding the study Exploring the End of Life Decision-Making and Hospital Experiences of Families Who Did Not Donate Organs or Tissues for Transplant Operations, on which this article is based.
Recommend this journal
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.