Fewer Mistakes and Presumed Consent

Author(s):  
Alexander Zambrano

Abstract “Opt-out” organ procurement policies based on presumed consent are typically advertised as being superior to “opt-in” policies based on explicit consent at securing organs for transplantation. However, Michael Gill (2004) has argued that presumed consent policies are also better than opt-in policies at respecting patient autonomy. According to Gill’s Fewer Mistakes Argument, we ought to implement the procurement policy that results in the fewest frustrated wishes regarding organ donation. Given that the majority of Americans wish to donate their organs, it is plausible that a presumed consent policy would result in fewer frustrated wishes compared to the current opt-in policy. It follows that we ought to implement a policy of presumed consent. In this paper, I first consider and find wanting an objection to the Fewer Mistakes Argument developed recently by Douglas MacKay (2015). I also consider an objection put forth by James Taylor (2012) but argue that there is a methodological reason to prefer my own argument to Taylor’s. Finally, I argue for two theses: first, that Gill’s major argument in favor of the crucial premise of the Fewer Mistakes Argument is flawed, and second, that the major premise of the Fewer Mistakes Argument is false.

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 587-597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicky Thornton

In 2015, Wales introduced a deemed consent: soft opt-out system for organ procurement in order to address the chronic shortage of organs for transplant. Early statistical evidence suggests that this has had a positive impact on cadaveric organ donation. Such a system for procurement has previously been dismissed by the Organ Donation Taskforce, who suggested that opting out could potentially undermine the concept of donated organs as gifts and this could then negatively impact the number of organs offered for transplant. Considerable weight was placed upon the need to retain the altruistic gift element associated with an opt-in system. This article will consider the role of altruism in an organ procurement policy. A broad utilitarian approach will be taken when putting forward the arguments in favour of adopting a weak altruism position in a soft opt-out system for procurement with a combined registry.


1996 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 174-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Roels ◽  
Johan De Meester

A country's organ donation rate and hence the availability of thoracic organs can be increased by organizational measures, by legislative incentives, and by increasing awareness among the public and healthcare professionals. We analyzed the relative impact of organ procurement legislation or policy on heart and lung donation rates per million population per year in the four countries participating in the Eurotransplant organization (population, 112.7 million) between January 1992 and December 1994. Within this organization, Austria and Belgium have presumed-consent legislation, whereas Germany and the Netherlands have an opting-in (explicit-consent) policy. Although practices vary even among countries with similar policies (eg, in Belgium, relatives of the donor retain the right to object to procurement of organs in the absence of an explicit consent from the deceased before death), rates of heart and lung donation were at least twice as high in the two countries with presumed-consent legislation as in the two countries that rely on a policy of explicit consent from the donor's next of kin.


2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-69
Author(s):  
Tobias K Cantrell

In an effort to solve the shortage of transplantable organs, there have been several proposals to introduce an opt-out approach to deceased organ donation in England (also termed ‘deemed’, or ‘presumed’ consent). In seeking to enact the so-called ‘opt-out proposal’ via an amendment to the Human Tissue Act 2004, The Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill 2017–19 represents the most recent attempt at such legal reform. Despite popular calls to the contrary, I argue in this paper that it would be premature for England, or, indeed, any country, to adopt an opt-out approach at this time. Not only is the available evidence inconclusive on whether introduction of the opt-out proposal would increase the supply of transplantable organs (a common misconception), but there is also a chance that doing so might bring about an otherwise avoidable moral harm through an unjustified interference with individual autonomy. I maintain that the resources required to change the law to such effect would be better expended on alternative, provenly efficacious and less contentious mechanisms for increasing the supply of transplantable organs, such as: improving communication with the family of the deceased, developing infrastructure, raising public awareness and enhancing staff training, attitudes and understanding towards organ donation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (19) ◽  
pp. 1127-1131
Author(s):  
Jelena Morris ◽  
Janet Holt

In May 2020, England adopted an opt-out approach for organ donation, also referred to as the deemed consent system, with the aim of alleviating the demand for organs in the UK. This system dictates that those who have not opted out will have their organs donated following their death, with the exception of those meeting certain criteria. This article applies the philosophical theory of utilitarianism to the deemed consent system for organ donation, focusing particularly on topics such as that of informed consent and family refusal. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that attempts to determine whether an action is morally right or wrong based on whether or not it maximises the preferences of the greatest number of people, with each person's satisfaction being considered as equal to another's.


2020 ◽  
pp. 177-211
Author(s):  
James F. Childress

After considering the huge and persistent gap between the supply of deceased donor organs for transplantation and the number of patients on the waiting list for a transplant, this chapter considers different ethical frameworks for evaluating first-person failures to donate organs after death and then assesses selected public policies designed to overcome these failures. Policies to facilitate first-person deceased organ donation often seek to alter the individual’s risk/cost-benefit calculations in deciding whether to register as a donor (for instance, by providing financial incentives); financial incentives can be ethically justifiable under some circumstances if they encourage and facilitate donation but do not implicate the sale of organs. Other proposed policies seek to nudge the individual’s declaration of organ donation through mandated choice or required response or through opt-out policies, often called “presumed consent,” under which not opting out counts as a donative decision. Available evidence suggests that mandated choice, required response, and presumed consent would probably be ineffective and perhaps even counterproductive in the United States at this time, but that some carefully designed combination could possibly be both ethically acceptable and effective.


2008 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 766-771 ◽  
Author(s):  
James F. Childress

The several articles in this special issue on organ donation after circulatory determination of death or, as it is often put, donation after cardiac death (DCD), draw lessons from different kinds of experience in order to guide efforts in the U.S. to develop or refine policies for DCD. One lesson comes from a major and, by many measures, successful experimental DCD program in Washington, D.C. in the 1990s. Another lesson comes from European countries that have adopted presumed-consent legislation, a form of “opt out” that facilitates DCD as well as donation after neurological determination of death (DND). Another lesson, from the perspective of critical care medicine in Canada, attends to the implications of viewing a dying patient, undergoing resuscitative procedures, as a potential organ donor. A final lesson sketches implications of legislation and court cases in the U.S., often involving DND, for initiating temporary organ preservation (TOP) in DCD programs before consent has been obtained for organ donation. Some of these lessons are optimistic about the prospects for DCD, especially if certain steps are taken, while others are more cautious, particularly because of the costs and risks involved in DCD.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 92-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pradeep Kumar Prabhu

The near-universal acceptance of cadaveric organ donation has been based on the provision of explicit consent by the donor while alive, either in the form of a formal opt-in or informal discussion of wishes with next of kin. Despite the success of transplantation programmes based on explicit consent, the ongoing imbalance between demand and supply of organs for transplantation has prompted calls for more widespread introduction of laws validating presumed consent with facility for opt-out as a means of increasing organ availability. The Department of Health (UK) has recently concluded a consultation on the introduction of such a law for England. This article explores the debate on presumed consent from an ethical point of view and summarises the key arguments on both sides of the ethical divide.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Molina Pérez ◽  
David Rodríguez-Arias ◽  
Janet Delgado

Objectives: To increase post-mortem organ donation rates, several countries are adopting an opt-out (presumed consent) policy, meaning that individuals are deemed donors unless they expressly refused so. However, studies on the relative impact of opt-in or opt-out on deceased organ donation rates are inconclusive. Although opt-out countries tend to have higher donation rates, there is no conclusive evidence that this is caused by the policy itself. The main objective of this study is to better assess the impact of consent policies when considering the role of the family in decision-making. Design: By systematically combining the three components of the decision-making process --the default rule, the deceaseds preferences, and the family s preferences,-- we identify all situations that affect the retrieval outcome under opt-in and opt-out policies. Then, by gathering empirical data from a wide array of countries, we estimate the relative frequency of these situations. Main outcome measures: We measure the relative impact that opt-in and opt-out policies have per se on post-mortem organ retrieval. Results: Our analysis shows that opt-in and opt-out have strictly identical outcomes in eight out of nine situations. These policies only differ when neither the deceased nor the family have expressed a preference and defaults therefore apply. The actual impact of consent policies is typically circumscribed to a range of 0% to 5% of all opportunities for organ retrieval. Conclusions: This study may warn contemporary organ retrieval policymakers that, by emphasizing the need to introduce presumed consent, they might be overestimating the influence of policy defaults and underestimating the power granted to families in expressing their preferences and making decisions about organ donation. Governments should reassess the opportunity and effectiveness of adopting opt-out policies for organ retrieval.


2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2021-107630
Author(s):  
G M Qurashi

The Organ Donation Act 2019 has introduced an opt-out organ donor register in England, meaning that consent to the donation of organs upon death is presumed unless an objection during life was actively expressed. By assessing the rights of the dead over their organs, the sick to those same organs, and the role of consent in their requisition, this paper interrogates whether such paradigms for deceased organ donation are ethically justifiable. Where legal considerations are applicable, I focus on the recent changes in England as a case in point; however, this paper ultimately challenges the justifiability of opt-out systems in any form, concluding that ethical solutions to organ shortage do not lie in opt-out systems of deceased organ procurement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document