[Is the person of trust a reliable witness in case of organ removal from a deceased person for donation purposes?].
OBJECTIVE
All adults (people over the age of 18) can assign a person of trust and this person can be a parent, a partner or the treating doctor. Following the introduction of the 4(th) March 2002 law, this third party is now within the doctor-patient relationship. The aim of this study is to find out who is appointed as a person of trust by patients notably concerning the level of education or medical knowledge of these people. We have equally put the person of trust to the test within the realms that they would be questioned regarding organ donation from the deceased.


METHODS
The included subjects were adults admitted to hospital for surgical procedures or medical biopsies that were not deemed life threatening. The data collection was done by doctors from the legal medicine department at the university hospital of Amiens over a period of 18 months. With the permission of the patient and his or her person of trust, a one-to-one discussion was held. Statistical analysis took place focusing on all the variables together and is shown by comparing the patient group versus the person of trust group. The significance threshold returned was 0.05.


RESULTS
A total of 125 patients-persons of trust couples were interviewed. The patients and their person of trust were not different in terms of age, social status, occupational groups and education. However, a person of trust is more often a woman (64%) against 50% of patients. A person of trust more often lives as a couple than the patients. Concerning organ donation, over half of the people questioned were for donation but only a third of patients had already discussed the subject with their person of trust. The persons of trust bring in 40% of cases a response that is not concordant in the position of the patient.


CONCLUSIONS
The creation of a person of trust due to the law of 4(th) March 2002 brings about the opportunity for the patient to take on an approach, with the doctors, of having somebody that can advise them. Yet in this study, there is no significant evidence of a difference between the level of education of patients and that of their person of trust, or a difference in the distribution of the socio-professional categories, or specific choices for the GP. The person of trust can be used to wait on behalf of the patient whilst he or she is not able to do so. Even if the patient feels that the person of trust has come first over other close friends or relatives, the persons of trust assume this role with difficulty. Since its creation, the person of trust was presented as a response to social demand; however, it seems that patients are not sufficiently informed when it comes to the possibilities that are on offer to them.
Gignon
M
M
Consultation de médecine légale, CHU d'Amiens-Picardie, place Victor-Pauchet, 80054 Amiens cedex 1, France.
Manaouil
C
C
Jardé
O
O
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001926:Brain Death; D003657:Decision Making; D004522:Educational Status; D005190:Family; D005260:Female; D005602:France; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations; D019727:Proxy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000523:psychology*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D009927:Tissue and Organ Procurement / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014836:Volition; D055815:Young Adult