What This Statute Says
The statute resolves the difficult moment when end-of-life care preferences and donation preferences appear to conflict.
A. If the terms of a prospective donor's living will or health care directive and the express or implied terms of an anatomical gift made by the prospective donor, or made by any other person, appear to be in conflict with regard to the administration of measures necessary to ensure the medical suitability of a part for transplantation or therapy, appropriate consultation shall occur to determine the prospective donor's actual or likely intent in resolving that conflict. Resolution of the conflict shall occur as expeditiously as possible. If the prospective donor is unable to resolve the conflict, another person authorized by law to make health care decisions on behalf of the prospective donor shall resolve the conflict. Before resolution of the conflict, measures necessary to ensure the medical suitability of the part may not be withheld or withdrawn from the prospective donor if withholding or withdrawing of the measures is not contraindicated by appropriate end of life care.
B. For the purposes of subsection A of this section, appropriate consultation must include the prospective donor's attending physician, the hospital's ethics committee or, if none, a designated representative of the hospital, and the agent acting under the prospective donor's health care directive or, if none, any other individual authorized by law to make health care decisions on behalf of the prospective donor and may include the appropriate procurement organization and any other person authorized to make an anatomical gift pursuant to section 36-848.
When This Statute Comes Into Play
The conflict scenario is real and well-known. A patient has signed a living will refusing prolonged life-sustaining treatment. The patient is also a registered donor. At the end of life, the procurement organization may need temporary preservation measures (mechanical ventilation, blood pressure support) to keep organs viable for transplant. Do those measures violate the living will?
This statute says: do not resolve the question silently. Convene the consultation, involve the agent under the healthcare directive, and preserve options during the consultation unless preservation is contraindicated by end-of-life care.
What This Means for Arizona Families
If you are both a donor and someone who has expressed strong wishes about end-of-life care, this conflict is foreseeable. The cleanest preventive step is to address it directly in your healthcare directive: specify what you want done if temporary preservation measures would be needed to make a donation possible.
Two common approaches families take: (1) authorize temporary preservation measures specifically for donation purposes for a stated period (often up to 72 hours), or (2) decline preservation measures regardless of impact on donation. Either choice is acceptable as long as it is documented. Our FAQ on comparing healthcare power of attorney and living will covers the document landscape. A well-drafted healthcare directive that explicitly addresses the donation conflict removes the burden from the family at a difficult moment and lets your agent make decisions confidently.