Showing posts with label families. Show all posts
Showing posts with label families. Show all posts
Monday, 16 September 2013
Moorlock on Queue-Jumping
An interesting (short and for-public) piece by Greg Moorlock here on the merits and problems of an Israeli-style priority for donors scheme here. It also connects back to our previous discussion of families, noting that the family veto will almost certainly have to be abolished if priority schemes are to work. Very relevant for what we've recently been discussing and highly recommended.
Thursday, 11 July 2013
The Role of the Family
Just 3-4 weeks ago we (that is, members of my RSE project on organ donation) were discussing the role of the family in decisions over donation - for instance whether next of kind should be able to override the wishes of the deceased individual (in either direction). Now it's national news!
Saturday, 15 June 2013
RSE Project featured in The Herald
Monday's event on the role of the family in donation decisions is mentioned here. What's not so clear from this brief piece is that the family can override the deceased's wishes in either an opt in or an opt out system. This piece may come across as concerned with an objection to an opt out system, which is not the intention.
Sunday, 14 April 2013
An Economist's Perspective
Economist Tim Harford considers some of the measures to increase organ procurement and suggests the importance of asking people to give their consent. (Thanks to Chris Bertram for directing me to this, on Twitter.)
I think Harford is right to say that many people, given the opportunity, will consent, so it's a good thing to ask people's views when, for instance, they apply for driving licences. It's unclear, however, whether this is sufficient to address the organ shortage. It's interesting that one reason he offers for 'rejecting presumed' is that it will not assure relatives of their loved one's wishes. As he asks, rhetorically, "If we fill our donor registry with auto-enrolled donors, will that really persuade distraught families to support transplants?"
This is all very well, but the unspoken assumption here is that family consent should be needed, along with that of individuals. Granted, perhaps in the opt-out system he was considering, this makes sense: the family should have the option to express an objection that the deceased may have had but never registered (a 'soft opt-out'). The danger, however, is that such systems potentially allow the family to override the wishes of the deceased. There have been a number of papers (for instance, this one) arguing that, even in an opt-out system, we ought not to consult the family: that the absence of objection from the deceased should be sufficient to license donation.
The appropriate role, if any, of families and next of kin is something we intend to explore in the next RSE Workshop.
I think Harford is right to say that many people, given the opportunity, will consent, so it's a good thing to ask people's views when, for instance, they apply for driving licences. It's unclear, however, whether this is sufficient to address the organ shortage. It's interesting that one reason he offers for 'rejecting presumed' is that it will not assure relatives of their loved one's wishes. As he asks, rhetorically, "If we fill our donor registry with auto-enrolled donors, will that really persuade distraught families to support transplants?"
This is all very well, but the unspoken assumption here is that family consent should be needed, along with that of individuals. Granted, perhaps in the opt-out system he was considering, this makes sense: the family should have the option to express an objection that the deceased may have had but never registered (a 'soft opt-out'). The danger, however, is that such systems potentially allow the family to override the wishes of the deceased. There have been a number of papers (for instance, this one) arguing that, even in an opt-out system, we ought not to consult the family: that the absence of objection from the deceased should be sufficient to license donation.
The appropriate role, if any, of families and next of kin is something we intend to explore in the next RSE Workshop.
Thursday, 11 April 2013
UK Donor Increase
Organ donation is in the news today. Since the Organ Donation Taskforce, which reported in 2008, there's been a significant increase in the number of registered donors and, consequently, in the number of transplants performed.
This is welcome news, but it shouldn't blind us to the fact that demand still exceeds supply, with three people dying each day in the United Kingdom because of a lack of transplant organs (figure from the BBC article, linked above). It's important to consider ways in which we might continue to do even better, including for instance an opt-out system.
It's also notable that, according to the first article, "Last year, 125 families overruled an individual's intention to donate". The UK's present system allows relatives of the deceased to override his/her expressed wishes. Whether this is justifiable or not ought, I think, to be more debated. It's an issue that we intend to examine in the next RSE workshop.
This is welcome news, but it shouldn't blind us to the fact that demand still exceeds supply, with three people dying each day in the United Kingdom because of a lack of transplant organs (figure from the BBC article, linked above). It's important to consider ways in which we might continue to do even better, including for instance an opt-out system.
It's also notable that, according to the first article, "Last year, 125 families overruled an individual's intention to donate". The UK's present system allows relatives of the deceased to override his/her expressed wishes. Whether this is justifiable or not ought, I think, to be more debated. It's an issue that we intend to examine in the next RSE workshop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)