Three proposals to increase Australia's organ supply

Australian Perspectives on Opt-In and Opt-Out Consent Systems for Deceased Organ Donation

Introduction: As many countries change to opt-out systems to address organ shortages, calls for similar reform in Australia persist. Community perspectives on consent systems for donation remain under-researched, therefore Australian perspectives on consent systems and their effectiveness in increasing donation rates were explored. Design: In this descriptive cross-sectional study, participants completed a survey presenting opt-in, soft opt-out, and hard opt-out systems, with corresponding descriptions. Participants chose the system they perceived as most effective and described their reasoning. Results: Participants (N = 509) designated soft opt-out as the most effective system (52.3%; hard opt-out 33.7%; opt-in 13.7%). Those who identified with an ethnic/cultural group or were not registered had greater odds of choosing opt-out. Six themes identified in thematic analysis reflected their reasoning: (1) who decides (individual, shared decision with family); (2) right to choose; (3) acceptability (ethics, fairness); and utility in overcoming barriers for (4) individuals (apathy, awareness, ease of donating, fear/avoidance of death); (5) family (easier family experience, family veto); (6) society (normalizing donation, donation as default, expanding donor pool). Choice and overcoming individual barriers were more frequently endorsed themes for opt-in and opt-out, respectively. Discussion: Results suggested the following insights regarding system effectiveness: uphold/prioritize individual's recorded donation decision above family wishes; involve family in decision making if no donation preference is recorded; retain a register enabling opt-in and opt-out for unequivocal decisions and promoting individual control; and maximize ease of registering. Future research should establish whether systems considered effective are also acceptable to the community to address organ shortages.

After the Pandemic: New Responsibilities

Seasonal influenza kills many hundreds of thousands of people every year. We argue that the current pandemic has lessons we should learn concerning how we should respond to it. Our response to the COVID-19 not only provides us with tools for confronting influenza; it also changes our sense of what is possible. The recognition of how dramatic policy responses to COVID-19 were and how widespread their general acceptance has been allowed us to imagine new and more sweeping responses to influenza. In fact, we not only can grasp how we can reduce its toll; this new knowledge entails new responsibilities to do so. We outline a range of potential interventions to alter social norms and to change structures to reduce influenza transmission, and consider ethical objections to our proposals.