Todd Zwillich

WASHINGTON — Electronic bar codes and radiofrequency microchips are all the rage in medical error prevention, but one research team thinks avoiding mistakes may be as easy as snapping a photo.

Researchers with the MedStar Health network here are experimenting with facial-capture software that they say could quickly and inexpensively help busy nurses and physicians avoid mistakes.

The software can pick human faces out of any photo image in less than a second. It's tied into a $120 Web camera mounted behind the nurse's triage desk, and anyone who approaches the desk automatically has his or her face captured. Nurses can permanently tie a patient's face to the corresponding electronic health record with one click.

Nurses “don't have to pick up a camera, they don't have to make them say cheese, they don't have to put them in a special location. All they have to do is click on the patient's face,” Dr. Michael Gillam, director of the Medical Media Lab at MedStar, said at the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association.

MedStar researchers already developed a state-of-the art electronic health record system allowing doctors and nurses to view patients' full charts at a glance. The system, known as Axyzzi, was snapped up by Microsoft Corp. in July.

Now Dr. Gillam's team is hoping that the facial photo capture system can help avoid errors by capitalizing on humans' natural penchant for recognizing faces.

“The problem with a bar code is that it's not human readable,” Dr. Gillam said in an interview.

MedStar developers say their software could be used to tack the right face to any medication order, blood product, or device before it goes into a patient.

“Anyone can look and see that that blood doesn't match, because that's not the right person,” Dr. Gillam said.

The Medical Media Lab tested the software prototype and found that it captured the smiling faces of all 22 racially diverse adults who approached a MedStar triage desk. But the system has yet to be put into practice to see if it really enhances patient safety.

But as with most identity technology, privacy is a concern. After all, no one wants to have his or her face on permanent file simply for asking directions to the rest room. Dr. Gillam said that although the system would photograph all comers, images are quickly erased if nurses don't attach them to a medical record.

WASHINGTON — Electronic bar codes and radiofrequency microchips are all the rage in medical error prevention, but one research team thinks avoiding mistakes may be as easy as snapping a photo.

Researchers with the MedStar Health network here are experimenting with facial-capture software that they say could quickly and inexpensively help busy nurses and physicians avoid mistakes.

The software can pick human faces out of any photo image in less than a second. It's tied into a $120 Web camera mounted behind the nurse's triage desk, and anyone who approaches the desk automatically has his or her face captured. Nurses can permanently tie a patient's face to the corresponding electronic health record with one click.

Nurses “don't have to pick up a camera, they don't have to make them say cheese, they don't have to put them in a special location. All they have to do is click on the patient's face,” Dr. Michael Gillam, director of the Medical Media Lab at MedStar, said at the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association.

MedStar researchers already developed a state-of-the art electronic health record system allowing doctors and nurses to view patients' full charts at a glance. The system, known as Axyzzi, was snapped up by Microsoft Corp. in July.

Now Dr. Gillam's team is hoping that the facial photo capture system can help avoid errors by capitalizing on humans' natural penchant for recognizing faces.

“The problem with a bar code is that it's not human readable,” Dr. Gillam said in an interview.

MedStar developers say their software could be used to tack the right face to any medication order, blood product, or device before it goes into a patient.

“Anyone can look and see that that blood doesn't match, because that's not the right person,” Dr. Gillam said.

The Medical Media Lab tested the software prototype and found that it captured the smiling faces of all 22 racially diverse adults who approached a MedStar triage desk. But the system has yet to be put into practice to see if it really enhances patient safety.

But as with most identity technology, privacy is a concern. After all, no one wants to have his or her face on permanent file simply for asking directions to the rest room. Dr. Gillam said that although the system would photograph all comers, images are quickly erased if nurses don't attach them to a medical record.

WASHINGTON — Electronic bar codes and radiofrequency microchips are all the rage in medical error prevention, but one research team thinks avoiding mistakes may be as easy as snapping a photo.

Researchers with the MedStar Health network here are experimenting with facial-capture software that they say could quickly and inexpensively help busy nurses and physicians avoid mistakes.

The software can pick human faces out of any photo image in less than a second. It's tied into a $120 Web camera mounted behind the nurse's triage desk, and anyone who approaches the desk automatically has his or her face captured. Nurses can permanently tie a patient's face to the corresponding electronic health record with one click.

Nurses “don't have to pick up a camera, they don't have to make them say cheese, they don't have to put them in a special location. All they have to do is click on the patient's face,” Dr. Michael Gillam, director of the Medical Media Lab at MedStar, said at the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association.

MedStar researchers already developed a state-of-the art electronic health record system allowing doctors and nurses to view patients' full charts at a glance. The system, known as Axyzzi, was snapped up by Microsoft Corp. in July.

Now Dr. Gillam's team is hoping that the facial photo capture system can help avoid errors by capitalizing on humans' natural penchant for recognizing faces.

“The problem with a bar code is that it's not human readable,” Dr. Gillam said in an interview.

MedStar developers say their software could be used to tack the right face to any medication order, blood product, or device before it goes into a patient.

“Anyone can look and see that that blood doesn't match, because that's not the right person,” Dr. Gillam said.

The Medical Media Lab tested the software prototype and found that it captured the smiling faces of all 22 racially diverse adults who approached a MedStar triage desk. But the system has yet to be put into practice to see if it really enhances patient safety.

But as with most identity technology, privacy is a concern. After all, no one wants to have his or her face on permanent file simply for asking directions to the rest room. Dr. Gillam said that although the system would photograph all comers, images are quickly erased if nurses don't attach them to a medical record.

WASHINGTON — Electronic bar codes and radiofrequency microchips are all the rage in medical error prevention, but one research team thinks avoiding mistakes may be as easy as snapping a photo.

Researchers with the MedStar Health network here are experimenting with facial-capture software that they say could quickly and inexpensively help busy nurses and physicians avoid mistakes.

The software can pick human faces out of any photo image in less than a second. It's tied into a $120 Web camera mounted behind the nurse's triage desk, and anyone who approaches the desk automatically has his or her face captured. Nurses can permanently tie a patient's face to the corresponding electronic health record with one click.

Nurses “don't have to pick up a camera, they don't have to make them say cheese, they don't have to put them in a special location. All they have to do is click on the patient's face,” Dr. Michael Gillam, director of the Medical Media Lab at MedStar, said at the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association.

MedStar researchers already developed a state-of-the art electronic health record system allowing doctors and nurses to view patients' full charts at a glance. The system, known as Axyzzi, was snapped up by Microsoft Corp. in July.

Now Dr. Gillam's team is hoping that the facial photo capture system can help avoid errors by capitalizing on humans' natural penchant for recognizing faces.

The Medical Media Lab tested the software prototype and found that it captured the faces of all 22 racially diverse adults who approached a MedStar triage desk. But the system has yet to be put it into practice to see if it really enhances patient safety.

Dr. Gillam said the automatic system could be especially useful in overwhelmed emergency departments. “Suddenly 30 patients show up … at one time from a bus accident. You can imagine trying to take each picture,” he said.

But as with most identity technology, privacy is a concern. After all, no one wants to have his or her face on permanent file simply for asking directions to the rest room. Dr. Gillam said that although the system would photograph all comers, images are quickly erased if nurses don't attach them to a medical record.

WASHINGTON — Electronic bar codes and radiofrequency microchips are all the rage in medical error prevention, but one research team thinks avoiding mistakes may be as easy as snapping a photo.

Researchers with the MedStar Health network here are experimenting with facial-capture software that they say could quickly and inexpensively help busy nurses and physicians avoid mistakes.

The software can pick human faces out of any photo image in less than a second. It's tied into a $120 Web camera mounted behind the nurse's triage desk, and anyone who approaches the desk automatically has his or her face captured. Nurses can permanently tie a patient's face to the corresponding electronic health record with one click.

Nurses “don't have to pick up a camera, they don't have to make them say cheese, they don't have to put them in a special location. All they have to do is click on the patient's face,” Dr. Michael Gillam, director of the Medical Media Lab at MedStar, said at the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association.

MedStar researchers already developed a state-of-the art electronic health record system allowing doctors and nurses to view patients' full charts at a glance. The system, known as Axyzzi, was snapped up by Microsoft Corp. in July.

Now Dr. Gillam's team is hoping that the facial photo capture system can help avoid errors by capitalizing on humans' natural penchant for recognizing faces.

The Medical Media Lab tested the software prototype and found that it captured the faces of all 22 racially diverse adults who approached a MedStar triage desk. But the system has yet to be put it into practice to see if it really enhances patient safety.

Dr. Gillam said the automatic system could be especially useful in overwhelmed emergency departments. “Suddenly 30 patients show up … at one time from a bus accident. You can imagine trying to take each picture,” he said.

But as with most identity technology, privacy is a concern. After all, no one wants to have his or her face on permanent file simply for asking directions to the rest room. Dr. Gillam said that although the system would photograph all comers, images are quickly erased if nurses don't attach them to a medical record.

WASHINGTON — Electronic bar codes and radiofrequency microchips are all the rage in medical error prevention, but one research team thinks avoiding mistakes may be as easy as snapping a photo.

Researchers with the MedStar Health network here are experimenting with facial-capture software that they say could quickly and inexpensively help busy nurses and physicians avoid mistakes.

The software can pick human faces out of any photo image in less than a second. It's tied into a $120 Web camera mounted behind the nurse's triage desk, and anyone who approaches the desk automatically has his or her face captured. Nurses can permanently tie a patient's face to the corresponding electronic health record with one click.

Nurses “don't have to pick up a camera, they don't have to make them say cheese, they don't have to put them in a special location. All they have to do is click on the patient's face,” Dr. Michael Gillam, director of the Medical Media Lab at MedStar, said at the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association.

MedStar researchers already developed a state-of-the art electronic health record system allowing doctors and nurses to view patients' full charts at a glance. The system, known as Axyzzi, was snapped up by Microsoft Corp. in July.

Now Dr. Gillam's team is hoping that the facial photo capture system can help avoid errors by capitalizing on humans' natural penchant for recognizing faces.

The Medical Media Lab tested the software prototype and found that it captured the faces of all 22 racially diverse adults who approached a MedStar triage desk. But the system has yet to be put it into practice to see if it really enhances patient safety.

Dr. Gillam said the automatic system could be especially useful in overwhelmed emergency departments. “Suddenly 30 patients show up … at one time from a bus accident. You can imagine trying to take each picture,” he said.

But as with most identity technology, privacy is a concern. After all, no one wants to have his or her face on permanent file simply for asking directions to the rest room. Dr. Gillam said that although the system would photograph all comers, images are quickly erased if nurses don't attach them to a medical record.

WASHINGTON — Avoiding medical errors may be as easy as snapping a photo.

Researchers with the MedStar Health network here are experimenting with facial-capture software that they say could quickly and inexpensively help busy nurses and physicians avoid mistakes.

The software can pick human faces out of any photo image in less than a second. It's tied into a $120 Web camera mounted behind the nurse's triage desk, and anyone who approaches the desk automatically has his or her face captured. Nurses can permanently tie a patient's face to the corresponding electronic health record with one click.

Nurses “don't have to pick up a camera, they don't have to make them say cheese, they don't have to put them in a special location. All they have to do is click on the patient's face,” Dr. Michael Gillam, director of the Medical Media Lab at MedStar, said at the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association.

MedStar researchers already developed a state-of-the art electronic health record system allowing doctors and nurses to view patients' full charts at a glance. The system, known as Axyzzi, was snapped up by Microsoft Corp., in July. Now Dr. Gillam's team is hoping that the facial photo capture system can help avoid errors by capitalizing on humans' natural penchant for recognizing faces. “The problem with a bar code is that it's not human readable,” Dr. Gillam said in an interview.

MedStar developers say their software could be used to tack the right face to any medication order, blood product, or device before it goes into a patient.

The Medical Media Lab tested the software prototype and found that it captured the smiling faces of all 22 racially diverse adults who approached a MedStar triage desk. But the system has yet to be put it into practice to see if it really enhances patient safety.

WASHINGTON — Avoiding medical errors may be as easy as snapping a photo.

Researchers with the MedStar Health network here are experimenting with facial-capture software that they say could quickly and inexpensively help busy nurses and physicians avoid mistakes.

The software can pick human faces out of any photo image in less than a second. It's tied into a $120 Web camera mounted behind the nurse's triage desk, and anyone who approaches the desk automatically has his or her face captured. Nurses can permanently tie a patient's face to the corresponding electronic health record with one click.

Nurses “don't have to pick up a camera, they don't have to make them say cheese, they don't have to put them in a special location. All they have to do is click on the patient's face,” Dr. Michael Gillam, director of the Medical Media Lab at MedStar, said at the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association.

MedStar researchers already developed a state-of-the art electronic health record system allowing doctors and nurses to view patients' full charts at a glance. The system, known as Axyzzi, was snapped up by Microsoft Corp., in July. Now Dr. Gillam's team is hoping that the facial photo capture system can help avoid errors by capitalizing on humans' natural penchant for recognizing faces. “The problem with a bar code is that it's not human readable,” Dr. Gillam said in an interview.

MedStar developers say their software could be used to tack the right face to any medication order, blood product, or device before it goes into a patient.

The Medical Media Lab tested the software prototype and found that it captured the smiling faces of all 22 racially diverse adults who approached a MedStar triage desk. But the system has yet to be put it into practice to see if it really enhances patient safety.

WASHINGTON — Avoiding medical errors may be as easy as snapping a photo.

Researchers with the MedStar Health network here are experimenting with facial-capture software that they say could quickly and inexpensively help busy nurses and physicians avoid mistakes.

The software can pick human faces out of any photo image in less than a second. It's tied into a $120 Web camera mounted behind the nurse's triage desk, and anyone who approaches the desk automatically has his or her face captured. Nurses can permanently tie a patient's face to the corresponding electronic health record with one click.

Nurses “don't have to pick up a camera, they don't have to make them say cheese, they don't have to put them in a special location. All they have to do is click on the patient's face,” Dr. Michael Gillam, director of the Medical Media Lab at MedStar, said at the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association.

MedStar researchers already developed a state-of-the art electronic health record system allowing doctors and nurses to view patients' full charts at a glance. The system, known as Axyzzi, was snapped up by Microsoft Corp., in July. Now Dr. Gillam's team is hoping that the facial photo capture system can help avoid errors by capitalizing on humans' natural penchant for recognizing faces. “The problem with a bar code is that it's not human readable,” Dr. Gillam said in an interview.

MedStar developers say their software could be used to tack the right face to any medication order, blood product, or device before it goes into a patient.

The Medical Media Lab tested the software prototype and found that it captured the smiling faces of all 22 racially diverse adults who approached a MedStar triage desk. But the system has yet to be put it into practice to see if it really enhances patient safety.

WASHINGTON — Electronic bar codes and radiofrequency microchips are all the rage in medical error prevention, but one research team thinks avoiding mistakes may be as easy as snapping a photo.

Researchers with the MedStar Health network here are experimenting with facial-capture software that they say could quickly and inexpensively help busy nurses and physicians avoid mistakes.

The software can pick human faces out of any photo image in less than a second. It's tied into a $120 Web camera mounted behind the nurse's triage desk, and anyone who approaches the desk automatically has his or her face captured. Nurses can permanently tie a patient's face to the corresponding electronic health record with one click.

Nurses “don't have to pick up a camera, they don't have to make them say cheese, they don't have to put them in a special location. All they have to do is click on the patient's face,” Dr. Michael Gillam, director of the Medical Media Lab at MedStar, said at the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association.

MedStar researchers already developed a state-of-the-art electronic health record system allowing doctors and nurses to view patients' full charts at a glance. The system, known as Axyzzi, was snapped up by the Microsoft Corporation in July 2006.

Now Dr. Gillam's team is hoping that the facial photo capture system can help avoid errors by capitalizing on humans' natural penchant for recognizing faces.

“The problem with a bar code is that it's not human-readable,” Dr. Gillam said in an interview.

MedStar developers say their software could be used to tack the right face to any medication order, blood product, or device before it goes into a patient.

“Anyone can look and see that that blood doesn't match, because that's not the right person,” Dr. Gillam said.

The Medical Media Lab tested the software prototype and found that it captured the smiling faces of all 22 racially diverse adults who approached a MedStar triage desk. But the system has yet to be put it into practice to see if it really enhances patient safety.

Dr. Gillam said the automatic system could be especially useful in overwhelmed emergency departments. “Suddenly 30 patients show up … at one time from a bus accident. You can imagine trying to take each picture,” he said.

But as with most identity technology, privacy is a concern. After all, no one wants to have his or her face on permanent file simply for asking directions to the rest room. Dr. Gillam said that although the system would photograph all comers, images are quickly erased if nurses don't attach them to a medical record.

WASHINGTON — Electronic bar codes and radiofrequency microchips are all the rage in medical error prevention, but one research team thinks avoiding mistakes may be as easy as snapping a photo.

Researchers with the MedStar Health network here are experimenting with facial-capture software that they say could quickly and inexpensively help busy nurses and physicians avoid mistakes.

The software can pick human faces out of any photo image in less than a second. It's tied into a $120 Web camera mounted behind the nurse's triage desk, and anyone who approaches the desk automatically has his or her face captured. Nurses can permanently tie a patient's face to the corresponding electronic health record with one click.

Nurses “don't have to pick up a camera, they don't have to make them say cheese, they don't have to put them in a special location. All they have to do is click on the patient's face,” Dr. Michael Gillam, director of the Medical Media Lab at MedStar, said at the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association.

MedStar researchers already developed a state-of-the-art electronic health record system allowing doctors and nurses to view patients' full charts at a glance. The system, known as Axyzzi, was snapped up by the Microsoft Corporation in July 2006.

Now Dr. Gillam's team is hoping that the facial photo capture system can help avoid errors by capitalizing on humans' natural penchant for recognizing faces.

“The problem with a bar code is that it's not human-readable,” Dr. Gillam said in an interview.

MedStar developers say their software could be used to tack the right face to any medication order, blood product, or device before it goes into a patient.

“Anyone can look and see that that blood doesn't match, because that's not the right person,” Dr. Gillam said.

The Medical Media Lab tested the software prototype and found that it captured the smiling faces of all 22 racially diverse adults who approached a MedStar triage desk. But the system has yet to be put it into practice to see if it really enhances patient safety.

Dr. Gillam said the automatic system could be especially useful in overwhelmed emergency departments. “Suddenly 30 patients show up … at one time from a bus accident. You can imagine trying to take each picture,” he said.

But as with most identity technology, privacy is a concern. After all, no one wants to have his or her face on permanent file simply for asking directions to the rest room. Dr. Gillam said that although the system would photograph all comers, images are quickly erased if nurses don't attach them to a medical record.

WASHINGTON — Electronic bar codes and radiofrequency microchips are all the rage in medical error prevention, but one research team thinks avoiding mistakes may be as easy as snapping a photo.

Researchers with the MedStar Health network here are experimenting with facial-capture software that they say could quickly and inexpensively help busy nurses and physicians avoid mistakes.

The software can pick human faces out of any photo image in less than a second. It's tied into a $120 Web camera mounted behind the nurse's triage desk, and anyone who approaches the desk automatically has his or her face captured. Nurses can permanently tie a patient's face to the corresponding electronic health record with one click.

Nurses “don't have to pick up a camera, they don't have to make them say cheese, they don't have to put them in a special location. All they have to do is click on the patient's face,” Dr. Michael Gillam, director of the Medical Media Lab at MedStar, said at the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association.

MedStar researchers already developed a state-of-the-art electronic health record system allowing doctors and nurses to view patients' full charts at a glance. The system, known as Axyzzi, was snapped up by the Microsoft Corporation in July 2006.

Now Dr. Gillam's team is hoping that the facial photo capture system can help avoid errors by capitalizing on humans' natural penchant for recognizing faces.

“The problem with a bar code is that it's not human-readable,” Dr. Gillam said in an interview.

MedStar developers say their software could be used to tack the right face to any medication order, blood product, or device before it goes into a patient.

“Anyone can look and see that that blood doesn't match, because that's not the right person,” Dr. Gillam said.

The Medical Media Lab tested the software prototype and found that it captured the smiling faces of all 22 racially diverse adults who approached a MedStar triage desk. But the system has yet to be put it into practice to see if it really enhances patient safety.

Dr. Gillam said the automatic system could be especially useful in overwhelmed emergency departments. “Suddenly 30 patients show up … at one time from a bus accident. You can imagine trying to take each picture,” he said.

But as with most identity technology, privacy is a concern. After all, no one wants to have his or her face on permanent file simply for asking directions to the rest room. Dr. Gillam said that although the system would photograph all comers, images are quickly erased if nurses don't attach them to a medical record.

WASHINGTON – Electronic bar codes and radiofrequency microchips are all the rage in medical error prevention, but one research team thinks avoiding mistakes may be as easy as snapping a photo.

Researchers with the MedStar Health network here are experimenting with facial-capture software that they say could quickly and inexpensively help busy nurses and physicians avoid mistakes.

The software can pick human faces out of any photo image in less than a second. It's tied into a $120 Web camera mounted behind the nurse's triage desk, and anyone who approaches the desk automatically has his or her face captured. Nurses can permanently tie a patient's face to the corresponding electronic health record with one click.

Nurses “don't have to pick up a camera, they don't have to make them say cheese, they don't have to put them in a special location. All they have to do is click on the patient's face,” Dr. Michael Gillam, director of the Medical Media Lab at MedStar, said at the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association.

MedStar researchers have already developed a state-of-the art electronic health record system that allows doctors and nurses to view patients' full charts at a glance.

The system, which is known as Axyzzi, was snapped up by Microsoft Corp. in July.

Now Dr. Gillam's team is hoping that the facial photo-capture system can help avoid errors by capitalizing on humans' natural penchant for recognizing faces.

“The problem with a bar code is that it's not human readable,” Dr. Gillam said in an interview.

MedStar developers say their software could be used to attach the right face to any medication order, blood product, or device before it goes into a patient.

“Anyone can look and see that that blood doesn't match, because that's not the right person,” Dr. Gillam said.

The Medical Media Lab tested the software prototype and found that it captured the smiling faces of all 22 racially diverse adults who approached a MedStar triage desk. But the system has yet to be put it into practice to see if it really enhances patient safety.

Dr. Gillam said the automatic system could be especially useful in overwhelmed emergency departments. “Suddenly 30 patients show up … at one time from a bus accident. You can imagine trying to take each picture,” he said.

But as with most identity technology, privacy is a concern. After all, no one wants to have his or her face on permanent file simply for asking directions to the rest room. Dr. Gillam said that although the system would photograph all comers, images are quickly erased if nurses don't attach them to a medical record.

WASHINGTON – Electronic bar codes and radiofrequency microchips are all the rage in medical error prevention, but one research team thinks avoiding mistakes may be as easy as snapping a photo.

Researchers with the MedStar Health network here are experimenting with facial-capture software that they say could quickly and inexpensively help busy nurses and physicians avoid mistakes.

The software can pick human faces out of any photo image in less than a second. It's tied into a $120 Web camera mounted behind the nurse's triage desk, and anyone who approaches the desk automatically has his or her face captured. Nurses can permanently tie a patient's face to the corresponding electronic health record with one click.

Nurses “don't have to pick up a camera, they don't have to make them say cheese, they don't have to put them in a special location. All they have to do is click on the patient's face,” Dr. Michael Gillam, director of the Medical Media Lab at MedStar, said at the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association.

MedStar researchers have already developed a state-of-the art electronic health record system that allows doctors and nurses to view patients' full charts at a glance.

The system, which is known as Axyzzi, was snapped up by Microsoft Corp. in July.

Now Dr. Gillam's team is hoping that the facial photo-capture system can help avoid errors by capitalizing on humans' natural penchant for recognizing faces.

“The problem with a bar code is that it's not human readable,” Dr. Gillam said in an interview.

MedStar developers say their software could be used to attach the right face to any medication order, blood product, or device before it goes into a patient.

“Anyone can look and see that that blood doesn't match, because that's not the right person,” Dr. Gillam said.

The Medical Media Lab tested the software prototype and found that it captured the smiling faces of all 22 racially diverse adults who approached a MedStar triage desk. But the system has yet to be put it into practice to see if it really enhances patient safety.

Dr. Gillam said the automatic system could be especially useful in overwhelmed emergency departments. “Suddenly 30 patients show up … at one time from a bus accident. You can imagine trying to take each picture,” he said.

But as with most identity technology, privacy is a concern. After all, no one wants to have his or her face on permanent file simply for asking directions to the rest room. Dr. Gillam said that although the system would photograph all comers, images are quickly erased if nurses don't attach them to a medical record.

WASHINGTON – Electronic bar codes and radiofrequency microchips are all the rage in medical error prevention, but one research team thinks avoiding mistakes may be as easy as snapping a photo.

Researchers with the MedStar Health network here are experimenting with facial-capture software that they say could quickly and inexpensively help busy nurses and physicians avoid mistakes.

The software can pick human faces out of any photo image in less than a second. It's tied into a $120 Web camera mounted behind the nurse's triage desk, and anyone who approaches the desk automatically has his or her face captured. Nurses can permanently tie a patient's face to the corresponding electronic health record with one click.

Nurses “don't have to pick up a camera, they don't have to make them say cheese, they don't have to put them in a special location. All they have to do is click on the patient's face,” Dr. Michael Gillam, director of the Medical Media Lab at MedStar, said at the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association.

MedStar researchers have already developed a state-of-the art electronic health record system that allows doctors and nurses to view patients' full charts at a glance.

The system, which is known as Axyzzi, was snapped up by Microsoft Corp. in July.

Now Dr. Gillam's team is hoping that the facial photo-capture system can help avoid errors by capitalizing on humans' natural penchant for recognizing faces.

“The problem with a bar code is that it's not human readable,” Dr. Gillam said in an interview.

MedStar developers say their software could be used to attach the right face to any medication order, blood product, or device before it goes into a patient.

“Anyone can look and see that that blood doesn't match, because that's not the right person,” Dr. Gillam said.

The Medical Media Lab tested the software prototype and found that it captured the smiling faces of all 22 racially diverse adults who approached a MedStar triage desk. But the system has yet to be put it into practice to see if it really enhances patient safety.

Dr. Gillam said the automatic system could be especially useful in overwhelmed emergency departments. “Suddenly 30 patients show up … at one time from a bus accident. You can imagine trying to take each picture,” he said.

But as with most identity technology, privacy is a concern. After all, no one wants to have his or her face on permanent file simply for asking directions to the rest room. Dr. Gillam said that although the system would photograph all comers, images are quickly erased if nurses don't attach them to a medical record.

WASHINGTON — Electronic bar codes and radiofrequency microchips are all the rage in medical error prevention, but one research team thinks avoiding mistakes may be as easy as snapping a photo.

Researchers with the MedStar Health network here are experimenting with facial-capture software that they say could quickly and inexpensively help busy nurses and physicians avoid mistakes.

The software can pick human faces out of any photo image in less than a second. It's tied into a $120 Web camera mounted behind the nurse's triage desk, and anyone who approaches the desk automatically has his or her face captured. Nurses can permanently tie a patient's face to the corresponding electronic health record with one click.

Nurses "don't have to pick up a camera, they don't have to make them say cheese, they don't have to put them in a special location. All they have to do is click on the patient's face," Dr. Michael Gillam, director of the medical media lab at MedStar, said at the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association.

MedStar researchers already developed an electronic health record system allowing doctors and nurses to view patients' full charts at a glance. The system, known as Axyzzi, was snapped up by Microsoft Corp. in July.

Now Dr. Gillam's team is hoping that the facial photo capture system can help avoid errors by capitalizing on humans' natural penchant for recognizing faces. "The problem with a bar code is that it's not human readable," he said in an interview.

MedStar says the software could be used to tack the right face to any medication order, blood product, or device before it goes into a patient.

"Anyone can look and see that that blood doesn't match, because that's not the right person," Dr. Gillam said.

The Medical Media Lab tested the software prototype and found that it captured the smiling faces of all 22 racially diverse adults who approached a MedStar triage desk.

But as with most identity technology, privacy is a concern. Dr. Gillam said that although the system would photograph all comers, images are quickly erased if nurses don't attach them to a medical record.

WASHINGTON — Electronic bar codes and radiofrequency microchips are all the rage in medical error prevention, but one research team thinks avoiding mistakes may be as easy as snapping a photo.

Researchers with the MedStar Health network here are experimenting with facial-capture software that they say could quickly and inexpensively help busy nurses and physicians avoid mistakes.

The software can pick human faces out of any photo image in less than a second. It's tied into a $120 Web camera mounted behind the nurse's triage desk, and anyone who approaches the desk automatically has his or her face captured. Nurses can permanently tie a patient's face to the corresponding electronic health record with one click.

Nurses "don't have to pick up a camera, they don't have to make them say cheese, they don't have to put them in a special location. All they have to do is click on the patient's face," Dr. Michael Gillam, director of the medical media lab at MedStar, said at the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association.

MedStar researchers already developed an electronic health record system allowing doctors and nurses to view patients' full charts at a glance. The system, known as Axyzzi, was snapped up by Microsoft Corp. in July.

Now Dr. Gillam's team is hoping that the facial photo capture system can help avoid errors by capitalizing on humans' natural penchant for recognizing faces. "The problem with a bar code is that it's not human readable," he said in an interview.

MedStar says the software could be used to tack the right face to any medication order, blood product, or device before it goes into a patient.

"Anyone can look and see that that blood doesn't match, because that's not the right person," Dr. Gillam said.

The Medical Media Lab tested the software prototype and found that it captured the smiling faces of all 22 racially diverse adults who approached a MedStar triage desk.

But as with most identity technology, privacy is a concern. Dr. Gillam said that although the system would photograph all comers, images are quickly erased if nurses don't attach them to a medical record.

WASHINGTON — Electronic bar codes and radiofrequency microchips are all the rage in medical error prevention, but one research team thinks avoiding mistakes may be as easy as snapping a photo.

Researchers with the MedStar Health network here are experimenting with facial-capture software that they say could quickly and inexpensively help busy nurses and physicians avoid mistakes.

The software can pick human faces out of any photo image in less than a second. It's tied into a $120 Web camera mounted behind the nurse's triage desk, and anyone who approaches the desk automatically has his or her face captured. Nurses can permanently tie a patient's face to the corresponding electronic health record with one click.

Nurses "don't have to pick up a camera, they don't have to make them say cheese, they don't have to put them in a special location. All they have to do is click on the patient's face," Dr. Michael Gillam, director of the medical media lab at MedStar, said at the annual symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association.

MedStar researchers already developed an electronic health record system allowing doctors and nurses to view patients' full charts at a glance. The system, known as Axyzzi, was snapped up by Microsoft Corp. in July.

Now Dr. Gillam's team is hoping that the facial photo capture system can help avoid errors by capitalizing on humans' natural penchant for recognizing faces. "The problem with a bar code is that it's not human readable," he said in an interview.

MedStar says the software could be used to tack the right face to any medication order, blood product, or device before it goes into a patient.

"Anyone can look and see that that blood doesn't match, because that's not the right person," Dr. Gillam said.

The Medical Media Lab tested the software prototype and found that it captured the smiling faces of all 22 racially diverse adults who approached a MedStar triage desk.

But as with most identity technology, privacy is a concern. Dr. Gillam said that although the system would photograph all comers, images are quickly erased if nurses don't attach them to a medical record.

WASHINGTON — A report from the Institute of Medicine has helped fuel debate on what can be done to stem the nation's increasing shortage of donated organs.

The report, written by a panel of respected experts, recommended intensified efforts to boost Americans' flagging altruistic instincts and called for more research into how to improve the existing organ donation system.

Institute of Medicine advisers also called for revised resuscitation standards to increase the chances that organs of brain-dead trauma victims could be preserved for transplant. They also encouraged authorities to experiment with a new cardiac standard of death, in the hopes that it could roughly double the number of available grafts culled from patients who become donors after being declared brain-dead.

Such a standard could allow up to 22,000 donations per year from patients in permanent vegetative states or comas, said James F. Childress, Ph.D., a professor of medical ethics at the University of Virginia and chair of the Institute of Medicine panel.

But for some ethicists, the report was more noteworthy for what it did not recommend. The Institute of Medicine panel avoided a host of more controversial policies that some ethicists say are needed in light of the thousands of Americans who die each year on transplant waiting lists.

“This report could be said in many ways [to be] a conservative report,” Dr. Childress told members of the President's Council on Bioethics at a recent council meeting.

The Institute of Medicine panel recommended against what some members of the President's Council support: allowing the buying and selling of human organs from live donors, in the hopes that market forces move supply nearer to demand.

Some ethicists acknowledge that allowing an organ market is a radical solution, fraught with the ethical pitfalls inherent in commodifying body parts. But they see the benefit as outweighing the risk of death for the 92,400 Americans currently on the United Network for Organ Sharing waiting list. Meanwhile, the number of Americans with end-stage renal disease is expected to double to nearly 650,000 by 2015.

A vocal group of free-market advocates sees it differently. Dr. Benjamin Hippen, a nephrologist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C., argues that a regulated market in human organs would boost the supply of viable kidneys, while doing away with a dangerous international black market.

Dr. Hippen, an at-large member of the United Network for Organ Sharing board, rejects the idea that a legal organ market is a necessary evil.

“Mine is not an argument that the ends justify the means, mine is an argument that the means themselves do not warrant legal prohibition,” he told the bioethics council.

Meanwhile, others continue to caution that financial incentives would exploit low-income individuals desperate to sell organs out of economic need.

“We simply can't ignore the fact that the sellers are going to be the poor, predominantly. Most well-off people are not going to sell their organs as a way to buy a third car,” said Eric Cohen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington.

The President's Council on Bioethics is expected to issue its recommendations for organ donation in the fall.

WASHINGTON — A report from the Institute of Medicine has helped fuel debate on what can be done to stem the nation's increasing shortage of donated organs.

The report, written by a panel of respected experts, recommended intensified efforts to boost Americans' flagging altruistic instincts and called for more research into how to improve the existing organ donation system.

Institute of Medicine advisers also called for revised resuscitation standards to increase the chances that organs of brain-dead trauma victims could be preserved for transplant. They also encouraged authorities to experiment with a new cardiac standard of death, in the hopes that it could roughly double the number of available grafts culled from patients who become donors after being declared brain-dead.

Such a standard could allow up to 22,000 donations per year from patients in permanent vegetative states or comas, said James F. Childress, Ph.D., a professor of medical ethics at the University of Virginia and chair of the Institute of Medicine panel.

But for some ethicists, the report was more noteworthy for what it did not recommend. The Institute of Medicine panel avoided a host of more controversial policies that some ethicists say are needed in light of the thousands of Americans who die each year on transplant waiting lists.

“This report could be said in many ways [to be] a conservative report,” Dr. Childress told members of the President's Council on Bioethics at a recent council meeting.

The Institute of Medicine panel recommended against what some members of the President's Council support: allowing the buying and selling of human organs from live donors, in the hopes that market forces move supply nearer to demand.

Some ethicists acknowledge that allowing an organ market is a radical solution, fraught with the ethical pitfalls inherent in commodifying body parts. But they see the benefit as outweighing the risk of death for the 92,400 Americans currently on the United Network for Organ Sharing waiting list. Meanwhile, the number of Americans with end-stage renal disease is expected to double to nearly 650,000 by 2015.

A vocal group of free-market advocates sees it differently. Dr. Benjamin Hippen, a nephrologist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C., argues that a regulated market in human organs would boost the supply of viable kidneys, while doing away with a dangerous international black market.

Dr. Hippen, an at-large member of the United Network for Organ Sharing board, rejects the idea that a legal organ market is a necessary evil.

“Mine is not an argument that the ends justify the means, mine is an argument that the means themselves do not warrant legal prohibition,” he told the bioethics council.

Meanwhile, others continue to caution that financial incentives would exploit low-income individuals desperate to sell organs out of economic need.

“We simply can't ignore the fact that the sellers are going to be the poor, predominantly. Most well-off people are not going to sell their organs as a way to buy a third car,” said Eric Cohen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington.

The President's Council on Bioethics is expected to issue its recommendations for organ donation in the fall.

WASHINGTON — A report from the Institute of Medicine has helped fuel debate on what can be done to stem the nation's increasing shortage of donated organs.

The report, written by a panel of respected experts, recommended intensified efforts to boost Americans' flagging altruistic instincts and called for more research into how to improve the existing organ donation system.

Institute of Medicine advisers also called for revised resuscitation standards to increase the chances that organs of brain-dead trauma victims could be preserved for transplant. They also encouraged authorities to experiment with a new cardiac standard of death, in the hopes that it could roughly double the number of available grafts culled from patients who become donors after being declared brain-dead.

Such a standard could allow up to 22,000 donations per year from patients in permanent vegetative states or comas, said James F. Childress, Ph.D., a professor of medical ethics at the University of Virginia and chair of the Institute of Medicine panel.

But for some ethicists, the report was more noteworthy for what it did not recommend. The Institute of Medicine panel avoided a host of more controversial policies that some ethicists say are needed in light of the thousands of Americans who die each year on transplant waiting lists.

“This report could be said in many ways [to be] a conservative report,” Dr. Childress told members of the President's Council on Bioethics at a recent council meeting.

The Institute of Medicine panel recommended against what some members of the President's Council support: allowing the buying and selling of human organs from live donors, in the hopes that market forces move supply nearer to demand.

Some ethicists acknowledge that allowing an organ market is a radical solution, fraught with the ethical pitfalls inherent in commodifying body parts. But they see the benefit as outweighing the risk of death for the 92,400 Americans currently on the United Network for Organ Sharing waiting list. Meanwhile, the number of Americans with end-stage renal disease is expected to double to nearly 650,000 by 2015.

A vocal group of free-market advocates sees it differently. Dr. Benjamin Hippen, a nephrologist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C., argues that a regulated market in human organs would boost the supply of viable kidneys, while doing away with a dangerous international black market.

Dr. Hippen, an at-large member of the United Network for Organ Sharing board, rejects the idea that a legal organ market is a necessary evil.

“Mine is not an argument that the ends justify the means, mine is an argument that the means themselves do not warrant legal prohibition,” he told the bioethics council.

Meanwhile, others continue to caution that financial incentives would exploit low-income individuals desperate to sell organs out of economic need.

“We simply can't ignore the fact that the sellers are going to be the poor, predominantly. Most well-off people are not going to sell their organs as a way to buy a third car,” said Eric Cohen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington.

The President's Council on Bioethics is expected to issue its recommendations for organ donation in the fall.

President Bush delighted many conservatives but disappointed medical groups when he vetoed a bill in July that would have expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Well over 100 groups representing patients, researchers, and physicians backed a bill to overturn tight restrictions on federal funding of embryonic research laid down by Bush in August 2001. That decision allowed funding on 77 cell lines already derived at the time, although researchers have since complained that only 20 or so are viable because of contamination and a lack of genetic diversity.

Bush used the first veto of his 5.5-year-old presidency to reject the bill (H.R. 810), despite broad bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. The House failed to reach the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it,” Bush said in a White House speech, flanked by several “snowflake” children who were adopted while still frozen embryos in fertility clinics.

Bush's move delighted many antiabortion conservatives, who had called on the president to reject the bill.

A handful of states—including California, Massachusetts, and Maryland—have laws funding embryonic stem cell research. Still, advocates of the research warned that the veto would cause the United States to fall behind on a promising therapeutic avenue.

“This research is going to take place. I'd like to see America take a leading role in this,” Lawrence T. Smith, chair of the board of the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview.

The issue split antiabortion lawmakers. Some agreed with Bush that destroying embryos amounts to ending human life, but others, including Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), concluded that embryos can become human life only if implanted in utero.

Physician lawmakers were also split. Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), an internist, accused supporters of overselling the promise of embryonic stem cells to cure degenerative diseases and spinal cord injuries.

“This business about cures being around the corner—they don't have an animal model that shows that embryonic stem cells work and they are safe,” Weldon said on the House floor. He was joined by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), an ob.gyn., Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr. (R-La.), a former surgeon, and Sen. Tom Coburn, (R-Okla.), a family physician.

Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-Mich.), an otolaryngologist, voted to expand the research. So did Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a cardiac surgeon and presidential hopeful who surprised colleagues last summer when he reversed his support for President Bush and said he'd support overturning research restrictions.

“In all forms of stem cell research, I see today … great promise to heal. Whether it's diabetes, Parkinson's disease, heart disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, or spinal cord injuries, stem cells offer hope for treatment that other lines of research cannot offer,” Sen. Frist said on the Senate floor.

Bush's veto angered some of his political opponents, some of whom questioned whether he or his staff was familiar with the legislation. Bush said he rejected the bill because “American taxpayers would for the first time be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos.”

A decade-old law known as the Dickey Amendment already bans using federal money to destroy human embryos or fetuses. The bill would have used federal funding to research cell lines derived using private money.

“You listen to the president's speech and you wonder who his science teacher was,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

President Bush delighted many conservatives but disappointed medical groups when he vetoed a bill in July that would have expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Well over 100 groups representing patients, researchers, and physicians backed a bill to overturn tight restrictions on federal funding of embryonic research laid down by Bush in August 2001. That decision allowed funding on 77 cell lines already derived at the time, although researchers have since complained that only 20 or so are viable because of contamination and a lack of genetic diversity.

Bush used the first veto of his 5.5-year-old presidency to reject the bill (H.R. 810), despite broad bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. The House failed to reach the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it,” Bush said in a White House speech, flanked by several “snowflake” children who were adopted while still frozen embryos in fertility clinics.

Bush's move delighted many antiabortion conservatives, who had called on the president to reject the bill.

A handful of states—including California, Massachusetts, and Maryland—have laws funding embryonic stem cell research. Still, advocates of the research warned that the veto would cause the United States to fall behind on a promising therapeutic avenue.

“This research is going to take place. I'd like to see America take a leading role in this,” Lawrence T. Smith, chair of the board of the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview.

The issue split antiabortion lawmakers. Some agreed with Bush that destroying embryos amounts to ending human life, but others, including Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), concluded that embryos can become human life only if implanted in utero.

Physician lawmakers were also split. Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), an internist, accused supporters of overselling the promise of embryonic stem cells to cure degenerative diseases and spinal cord injuries.

“This business about cures being around the corner—they don't have an animal model that shows that embryonic stem cells work and they are safe,” Weldon said on the House floor. He was joined by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), an ob.gyn., Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr. (R-La.), a former surgeon, and Sen. Tom Coburn, (R-Okla.), a family physician.

Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-Mich.), an otolaryngologist, voted to expand the research. So did Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a cardiac surgeon and presidential hopeful who surprised colleagues last summer when he reversed his support for President Bush and said he'd support overturning research restrictions.

“In all forms of stem cell research, I see today … great promise to heal. Whether it's diabetes, Parkinson's disease, heart disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, or spinal cord injuries, stem cells offer hope for treatment that other lines of research cannot offer,” Sen. Frist said on the Senate floor.

Bush's veto angered some of his political opponents, some of whom questioned whether he or his staff was familiar with the legislation. Bush said he rejected the bill because “American taxpayers would for the first time be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos.”

A decade-old law known as the Dickey Amendment already bans using federal money to destroy human embryos or fetuses. The bill would have used federal funding to research cell lines derived using private money.

“You listen to the president's speech and you wonder who his science teacher was,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

President Bush delighted many conservatives but disappointed medical groups when he vetoed a bill in July that would have expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Well over 100 groups representing patients, researchers, and physicians backed a bill to overturn tight restrictions on federal funding of embryonic research laid down by Bush in August 2001. That decision allowed funding on 77 cell lines already derived at the time, although researchers have since complained that only 20 or so are viable because of contamination and a lack of genetic diversity.

Bush used the first veto of his 5.5-year-old presidency to reject the bill (H.R. 810), despite broad bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. The House failed to reach the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it,” Bush said in a White House speech, flanked by several “snowflake” children who were adopted while still frozen embryos in fertility clinics.

Bush's move delighted many antiabortion conservatives, who had called on the president to reject the bill.

A handful of states—including California, Massachusetts, and Maryland—have laws funding embryonic stem cell research. Still, advocates of the research warned that the veto would cause the United States to fall behind on a promising therapeutic avenue.

“This research is going to take place. I'd like to see America take a leading role in this,” Lawrence T. Smith, chair of the board of the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview.

The issue split antiabortion lawmakers. Some agreed with Bush that destroying embryos amounts to ending human life, but others, including Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), concluded that embryos can become human life only if implanted in utero.

Physician lawmakers were also split. Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), an internist, accused supporters of overselling the promise of embryonic stem cells to cure degenerative diseases and spinal cord injuries.

“This business about cures being around the corner—they don't have an animal model that shows that embryonic stem cells work and they are safe,” Weldon said on the House floor. He was joined by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), an ob.gyn., Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr. (R-La.), a former surgeon, and Sen. Tom Coburn, (R-Okla.), a family physician.

Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-Mich.), an otolaryngologist, voted to expand the research. So did Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a cardiac surgeon and presidential hopeful who surprised colleagues last summer when he reversed his support for President Bush and said he'd support overturning research restrictions.

“In all forms of stem cell research, I see today … great promise to heal. Whether it's diabetes, Parkinson's disease, heart disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, or spinal cord injuries, stem cells offer hope for treatment that other lines of research cannot offer,” Sen. Frist said on the Senate floor.

Bush's veto angered some of his political opponents, some of whom questioned whether he or his staff was familiar with the legislation. Bush said he rejected the bill because “American taxpayers would for the first time be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos.”

A decade-old law known as the Dickey Amendment already bans using federal money to destroy human embryos or fetuses. The bill would have used federal funding to research cell lines derived using private money.

“You listen to the president's speech and you wonder who his science teacher was,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

WASHINGTON — A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine has helped fuel debate on what can be done to resolve the nation's worsening shortage of donated organs.

The report, written by a panel of respected experts, suggested intensified efforts to boost Americans' flagging altruistic instincts and called for more research into how to improve the existing organ donation system.

Institute of Medicine (IOM) advisers also called for revised resuscitation standards to increase the chances that organs of brain-dead trauma victims could be preserved for transplant.

Furthermore, they encouraged authorities to experiment with a new cardiac standard of death, in the hopes that it could roughly double the number of available grafts culled from patients who donate after being declared brain-dead.

Such a standard could allow up to 22,000 donations per year from patients in permanent vegetative states or comas, said Dr. James F. Childress, a professor of medical ethics at the University of Virginia and chair of the IOM panel.

But for some ethicists, the report was more noteworthy for what it did not recommend. The IOM panel avoided a host of more controversial policies that some ethicists say are needed in light of the thousands of Americans who die each year while languishing on transplant waiting lists.

“This report could be said in many ways [to be] a conservative report,” Dr. Childress told members of the President's Council on Bioethics at a recent council meeting.

The IOM panel recommended against what some members of the President's Council support: Allowing the buying and selling of human organs from live donors, in the hopes that market forces move supply nearer to demand.

Some ethicists acknowledge that allowing an organ market is a radical solution, fraught with the ethical pitfalls inherent in commodifying body parts.

But they see the benefit as outweighing the risk of death for the 92,400 Americans currently on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) waiting list. Meanwhile, the number of Americans with end-stage renal disease is expected to double to nearly 650,000 by 2015.

A vocal group of free-market advocates sees it differently. Dr. Benjamin Hippen, a nephrologist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C., argues that a regulated market in human organs would boost the supply of viable kidneys, while doing away with a dangerous international black market.

Dr. Hippen, an at-large member of the UNOS board, rejects the idea that a legal organ market is a necessary evil.

“Mine is not an argument that the ends justify the means; mine is an argument that the means themselves do not warrant legal prohibition,” he told the bioethics council.

Meanwhile, others continue to caution that financial incentives would exploit low-income individuals desperate to sell organs out of economic need.

“We simply can't ignore the fact that the sellers are going to be the poor, predominantly. Most well-off people are not going to sell their organs as a way to buy a third car,” said Eric Cohen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington.

The President's Council on Bioethics is not expected to issue its recommendations for organ donation until the fall.

WASHINGTON — A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine has helped fuel debate on what can be done to resolve the nation's worsening shortage of donated organs.

The report, written by a panel of respected experts, suggested intensified efforts to boost Americans' flagging altruistic instincts and called for more research into how to improve the existing organ donation system.

Institute of Medicine (IOM) advisers also called for revised resuscitation standards to increase the chances that organs of brain-dead trauma victims could be preserved for transplant.

Furthermore, they encouraged authorities to experiment with a new cardiac standard of death, in the hopes that it could roughly double the number of available grafts culled from patients who donate after being declared brain-dead.

Such a standard could allow up to 22,000 donations per year from patients in permanent vegetative states or comas, said Dr. James F. Childress, a professor of medical ethics at the University of Virginia and chair of the IOM panel.

But for some ethicists, the report was more noteworthy for what it did not recommend. The IOM panel avoided a host of more controversial policies that some ethicists say are needed in light of the thousands of Americans who die each year while languishing on transplant waiting lists.

“This report could be said in many ways [to be] a conservative report,” Dr. Childress told members of the President's Council on Bioethics at a recent council meeting.

The IOM panel recommended against what some members of the President's Council support: Allowing the buying and selling of human organs from live donors, in the hopes that market forces move supply nearer to demand.

Some ethicists acknowledge that allowing an organ market is a radical solution, fraught with the ethical pitfalls inherent in commodifying body parts.

But they see the benefit as outweighing the risk of death for the 92,400 Americans currently on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) waiting list. Meanwhile, the number of Americans with end-stage renal disease is expected to double to nearly 650,000 by 2015.

A vocal group of free-market advocates sees it differently. Dr. Benjamin Hippen, a nephrologist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C., argues that a regulated market in human organs would boost the supply of viable kidneys, while doing away with a dangerous international black market.

Dr. Hippen, an at-large member of the UNOS board, rejects the idea that a legal organ market is a necessary evil.

“Mine is not an argument that the ends justify the means; mine is an argument that the means themselves do not warrant legal prohibition,” he told the bioethics council.

Meanwhile, others continue to caution that financial incentives would exploit low-income individuals desperate to sell organs out of economic need.

“We simply can't ignore the fact that the sellers are going to be the poor, predominantly. Most well-off people are not going to sell their organs as a way to buy a third car,” said Eric Cohen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington.

The President's Council on Bioethics is not expected to issue its recommendations for organ donation until the fall.

WASHINGTON — A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine has helped fuel debate on what can be done to resolve the nation's worsening shortage of donated organs.

The report, written by a panel of respected experts, suggested intensified efforts to boost Americans' flagging altruistic instincts and called for more research into how to improve the existing organ donation system.

Institute of Medicine (IOM) advisers also called for revised resuscitation standards to increase the chances that organs of brain-dead trauma victims could be preserved for transplant.

Furthermore, they encouraged authorities to experiment with a new cardiac standard of death, in the hopes that it could roughly double the number of available grafts culled from patients who donate after being declared brain-dead.

Such a standard could allow up to 22,000 donations per year from patients in permanent vegetative states or comas, said Dr. James F. Childress, a professor of medical ethics at the University of Virginia and chair of the IOM panel.

But for some ethicists, the report was more noteworthy for what it did not recommend. The IOM panel avoided a host of more controversial policies that some ethicists say are needed in light of the thousands of Americans who die each year while languishing on transplant waiting lists.

“This report could be said in many ways [to be] a conservative report,” Dr. Childress told members of the President's Council on Bioethics at a recent council meeting.

The IOM panel recommended against what some members of the President's Council support: Allowing the buying and selling of human organs from live donors, in the hopes that market forces move supply nearer to demand.

Some ethicists acknowledge that allowing an organ market is a radical solution, fraught with the ethical pitfalls inherent in commodifying body parts.

But they see the benefit as outweighing the risk of death for the 92,400 Americans currently on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) waiting list. Meanwhile, the number of Americans with end-stage renal disease is expected to double to nearly 650,000 by 2015.

A vocal group of free-market advocates sees it differently. Dr. Benjamin Hippen, a nephrologist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C., argues that a regulated market in human organs would boost the supply of viable kidneys, while doing away with a dangerous international black market.

Dr. Hippen, an at-large member of the UNOS board, rejects the idea that a legal organ market is a necessary evil.

“Mine is not an argument that the ends justify the means; mine is an argument that the means themselves do not warrant legal prohibition,” he told the bioethics council.

Meanwhile, others continue to caution that financial incentives would exploit low-income individuals desperate to sell organs out of economic need.

“We simply can't ignore the fact that the sellers are going to be the poor, predominantly. Most well-off people are not going to sell their organs as a way to buy a third car,” said Eric Cohen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington.

The President's Council on Bioethics is not expected to issue its recommendations for organ donation until the fall.

President Bush delighted many conservatives but disappointed medical groups when he vetoed a bill last month that would have expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

More than 100 groups representing patients, researchers, and physicians backed a bill to overturn tight restrictions on federal funding of embryonic research laid down by the president in August 2001. That decision allowed funding on 77 cell lines already derived at the time, although researchers have since complained that only 20 or so are viable because of contamination and a lack of genetic diversity.

President Bush used the first veto of his presidency to reject the bill (H.R. 810), despite broad bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. Just a day before, the Senate approved the measure 63–37. The House then failed to come close to the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it,” President Bush said in a White House speech. He was flanked by several “Snowflake” children who were adopted while still frozen embryos in fertility clinics.

Bush's move delighted many antiabortion conservatives, who had called on the president to reject the bill.

A handful of states—including California, Massachusetts, and Maryland—have laws funding embryonic stem cell research. Still, advocates of the research warned that the veto would cause the United States to fall behind on a promising therapeutic avenue.

“This research is going to take place. I'd like to see America take a leading role in this,” Lawrence T. Smith, chair of the board of the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview.

Some lawmakers agreed with the president that destroying embryos amounts to ending human life, whereas others, including Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), concluded that embryos can become human life only if implanted in utero.

Physician lawmakers—most of whom are Republicans—were also split. Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), an internist, accused supporters of overselling the promise of embryonic stem cells to cure degenerative diseases and spinal cord injuries.

Rep. Weldon was joined by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), an ob.gyn., Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr. (R-La.), a former cardiac surgeon, and Sen. Tom Coburn, (R-Okla.), a family physician.

Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-Mich.), an otolaryngologist, voted to expand the research. So did Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a surgeon, who surprised colleagues last summer when he reversed his support for President Bush and said he'd support overturning research restrictions.

“In all forms of stem cell research, I see today … great promise to heal. Whether it's diabetes, Parkinson's disease, heart disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, or spinal cord injuries, stem cells offer hope for treatment that other lines of research cannot offer,” Sen. Frist said on the Senate floor.

President Bush delighted many conservatives but disappointed medical groups when he vetoed a bill last month that would have expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

More than 100 groups representing patients, researchers, and physicians backed a bill to overturn tight restrictions on federal funding of embryonic research laid down by the president in August 2001. That decision allowed funding on 77 cell lines already derived at the time, although researchers have since complained that only 20 or so are viable because of contamination and a lack of genetic diversity.

President Bush used the first veto of his presidency to reject the bill (H.R. 810), despite broad bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. Just a day before, the Senate approved the measure 63–37. The House then failed to come close to the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it,” President Bush said in a White House speech. He was flanked by several “Snowflake” children who were adopted while still frozen embryos in fertility clinics.

Bush's move delighted many antiabortion conservatives, who had called on the president to reject the bill.

A handful of states—including California, Massachusetts, and Maryland—have laws funding embryonic stem cell research. Still, advocates of the research warned that the veto would cause the United States to fall behind on a promising therapeutic avenue.

“This research is going to take place. I'd like to see America take a leading role in this,” Lawrence T. Smith, chair of the board of the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview.

Some lawmakers agreed with the president that destroying embryos amounts to ending human life, whereas others, including Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), concluded that embryos can become human life only if implanted in utero.

Physician lawmakers—most of whom are Republicans—were also split. Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), an internist, accused supporters of overselling the promise of embryonic stem cells to cure degenerative diseases and spinal cord injuries.

Rep. Weldon was joined by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), an ob.gyn., Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr. (R-La.), a former cardiac surgeon, and Sen. Tom Coburn, (R-Okla.), a family physician.

Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-Mich.), an otolaryngologist, voted to expand the research. So did Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a surgeon, who surprised colleagues last summer when he reversed his support for President Bush and said he'd support overturning research restrictions.

“In all forms of stem cell research, I see today … great promise to heal. Whether it's diabetes, Parkinson's disease, heart disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, or spinal cord injuries, stem cells offer hope for treatment that other lines of research cannot offer,” Sen. Frist said on the Senate floor.

President Bush delighted many conservatives but disappointed medical groups when he vetoed a bill last month that would have expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

More than 100 groups representing patients, researchers, and physicians backed a bill to overturn tight restrictions on federal funding of embryonic research laid down by the president in August 2001. That decision allowed funding on 77 cell lines already derived at the time, although researchers have since complained that only 20 or so are viable because of contamination and a lack of genetic diversity.

President Bush used the first veto of his presidency to reject the bill (H.R. 810), despite broad bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. Just a day before, the Senate approved the measure 63–37. The House then failed to come close to the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it,” President Bush said in a White House speech. He was flanked by several “Snowflake” children who were adopted while still frozen embryos in fertility clinics.

Bush's move delighted many antiabortion conservatives, who had called on the president to reject the bill.

A handful of states—including California, Massachusetts, and Maryland—have laws funding embryonic stem cell research. Still, advocates of the research warned that the veto would cause the United States to fall behind on a promising therapeutic avenue.

“This research is going to take place. I'd like to see America take a leading role in this,” Lawrence T. Smith, chair of the board of the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview.

Some lawmakers agreed with the president that destroying embryos amounts to ending human life, whereas others, including Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), concluded that embryos can become human life only if implanted in utero.

Physician lawmakers—most of whom are Republicans—were also split. Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), an internist, accused supporters of overselling the promise of embryonic stem cells to cure degenerative diseases and spinal cord injuries.

Rep. Weldon was joined by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), an ob.gyn., Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr. (R-La.), a former cardiac surgeon, and Sen. Tom Coburn, (R-Okla.), a family physician.

Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-Mich.), an otolaryngologist, voted to expand the research. So did Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a surgeon, who surprised colleagues last summer when he reversed his support for President Bush and said he'd support overturning research restrictions.

“In all forms of stem cell research, I see today … great promise to heal. Whether it's diabetes, Parkinson's disease, heart disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, or spinal cord injuries, stem cells offer hope for treatment that other lines of research cannot offer,” Sen. Frist said on the Senate floor.