AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 63 and Title 68, relative to anatomical gifts.
Summary
SB0860 revises Tennessee’s anatomical-gift laws to make a person’s refusal to donate body parts or tissue more explicit and more binding. Under the bill, an individual may refuse to make an anatomical gift through a signed writing, and a terminal patient may also refuse orally or through another form of communication. If that refusal is properly documented, it bars others from making or changing an anatomical gift on the person’s behalf.
The bill also changes the process after death. If a decedent refused donation, procurement organizations are prohibited from contacting the persons otherwise authorized to make donation decisions, and the remains must be released immediately to the funeral home chosen by next of kin. If there was no valid refusal, a procurement organization may contact the authorized person within six hours after cessation of heartbeat to seek a gift; if it fails to do so, the remains must be released immediately. The bill adds a complaint process and authorizes civil penalties of $500 for third and subsequent violations by hospitals, procurement organizations, or other covered entities.
Impact
SB0860 amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 68, Chapter 30, governing anatomical gifts, and makes a related change to the hierarchy of persons authorized to make donation decisions under § 68-30-109. It creates a clearer legal rule that a documented refusal to donate controls over later attempts by family members or others to authorize donation, and it imposes a time-sensitive contact requirement on procurement organizations. The bill also adds enforcement authority for the Department of Health or licensing boards, including civil penalties for repeated violations, and it affects hospitals, organ procurement organizations, funeral homes, next of kin, and other parties involved in post-death donation decisions.
Sentiment
The bill appears to reflect a protective, consumer-choice-oriented approach to anatomical gifts, emphasizing respect for a person’s refusal to donate and prompt release of remains to the funeral home when refusal is documented. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan division in the available record. The structure of the bill suggests support for clearer consent rules and stronger limits on procurement activity after a refusal.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s restriction on procurement organizations and its short six-hour window for contacting authorized decision-makers, which could be viewed as limiting donation opportunities and increasing administrative pressure on hospitals and procurement staff. Another possible issue is the civil penalty provision, which could raise concerns among health-care providers and procurement entities about compliance burdens and enforcement. On the other hand, supporters would likely emphasize patient autonomy, honoring documented refusals, and ensuring timely release of remains to the family’s chosen funeral home.