AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 63 and Title 68, relative to anatomical gifts.
Summary
HB1046 revises Tennessee’s anatomical gift laws to give stronger effect to a person’s refusal to donate organs or tissue. The bill allows an individual to refuse an anatomical gift in writing, and allows a terminal patient to refuse orally or through another form of communication. If that refusal exists, it bars others from making or changing an anatomical gift on the person’s behalf after death.
The bill also changes what hospitals and procurement organizations must do when a decedent has refused donation. In those cases, procurement organizations may not contact the listed decision-makers under the anatomical gift statute, and the decedent’s remains must be released immediately to the funeral home authorized by the next of kin. If no refusal exists, the bill requires procurement organizations to make initial contact with the authorized person within six hours after cessation of heartbeat, or else release the remains immediately. It also creates a complaint process and civil penalties for repeated violations.
Impact
HB1046 amends Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 68-30-107 and 68-30-109, affecting the state’s Uniform Anatomical Gift Act framework. It limits the authority of family members or other listed persons to override a documented refusal to donate, imposes timing and release requirements on procurement organizations, hospitals, and related entities, and authorizes enforcement through the Department of Health or licensing boards with a $500 civil penalty for third and subsequent violations. The bill primarily affects organ procurement organizations, hospitals, funeral homes, next of kin, and individuals making end-of-life donation decisions.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan division in the available materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to reflect a policy preference for honoring an individual’s expressed refusal to donate and for setting clear procedural deadlines for procurement organizations. The overall tone is regulatory and protective of patient autonomy, while also imposing enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns the bill’s strict limits on organ and tissue procurement after a refusal, especially the requirement that procurement organizations not contact decision-makers and must release remains immediately to the funeral home. Another possible area of concern is the six-hour contact deadline, which could be viewed by procurement organizations and hospitals as operationally restrictive. Supporters would likely emphasize respecting individual wishes and avoiding delays or disputes after death, while opponents may argue the bill could reduce donation opportunities and complicate recovery efforts.