Only a policy of presumed consent will improve organ donation rates, say experts

May 05, 2010

The Organ Donor Taskforce is unrealistic if it thinks that it can dramatically increase donation rates without adopting a policy of presumed consent, say experts in the British Medical Journal today.

The authors, Sheila Bird from the MRC Biostatistics Unit in Cambridge and John Harris from the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation in Manchester, argue that "the taskforce did not consider all the relevant evidence, particularly on relatives' refusal rates, and that the current policy, however reinforced, will not substantially increase the number of organs available."

By modelling different scenarios, they show that only a policy of presumed consent will substantially increase the number of organs available for transplantation.

They believe that the taskforce's report - commissioned to assess the impact of presumed consent on organ donation rates - has a number of serious shortcomings. For example, they say the taskforce misreported their assessment team's findings by referring to "apparent correlation" between presumed consent and donation rates.

The taskforce also failed "to exploit the UK's potential donor audit to measure, under different scenarios, the additional number of kidney, pancreatic, liver, heart and thoracic transplantations that there could have been in the past 10 years from donations after brain stem death," they add.

Using data from the past 20 years, they analysed the effect of four scenarios to determine how many extra transplants could have been carried out over a 10-year time frame. These varied from the current opt-in policy but with a reduced refusal rate of 30%, a presumed consent system with an opt-out rate ranging from 5-10%, and finally a mandatory donation system.

Based on these scenarios the researchers calculate that there could have been up to 2,880 extra solid organ donors. Changing the presumption, they say, has the potential to deliver 68% of the extra solid organ donors that mandatory donation would give.

They conclude: "Twenty years after the UK's first confidential audit, we continue to jeopardise substantial quality adjusted life years (uncounted by the Taskforce) for those awaiting transplantation by chasing a holy grail of enhanced consent by means other than presumption. Presumed consent, even allowing for over-rule by relatives, should ultimately cut costs, add life, and save bereaved families from anxious, as well as generous, deliberation in extremis."

Explore further: AbbVie to pay Shire $1.64B fee over nixed merger

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

New organ donor law raise ethics concerns

Apr 04, 2007

A model law updating U.S. organ donation procedures that is being circulated among states is raising ethics concerns about dying patients' rights and wishes.

Recommended for you

New MCAT shifts focus, will include humanities

17 hours ago

(HealthDay)—The Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) has been revised, and the latest changes, including more humanities such as social sciences, are due to be implemented next April, according to a report ...

Using feminist theory to understand male rape

Oct 20, 2014

Decades of feminist research have framed rape and sexual assault as a 'women's issue', leaving little room for the experiences of male victims. But a new study published in the Journal of Gender Studies suggests that feminist ...

Simulation-based training improves endoscopy execution

Oct 18, 2014

(HealthDay)—Simulation-based training (SBT) improves clinicians' performance of gastrointestinal endoscopy in both test settings and clinical practice, according to research published in the October issue ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JerryPark
3 / 5 (2) May 05, 2010
Presumed consent is organized theft.
We can certainly gain more of anything if we steal it.

No study is really necessary to discover the obvious.
henryjfry
1 / 5 (1) May 05, 2010
Presumed consent is not organized theft, it assumes if you don't care enough to opt out then your consent is implied.
I don't get why the small minds are against organ donation?
JerryPark
5 / 5 (1) May 05, 2010
I am not against organ donation. I am against forcibly taking organs from anyone without consent.

There are numerous circumstances where a choice to "opt out" will fail. When the default is "opt out" and it is necessary to "opt in" to donate, there is no opportunity for failure.