Contemporary issues in law and ethics: Exploring the family veto for organ donation

Efficiency and the futures market in organs

There has been considerable debate over regulated organ markets. Especially current markets, where people sell one of their kidneys while still alive, have received increased attention. Futures markets remain an interesting and under-discussed alternative specification of a market-based solution to the organ shortage. Futures markets pertain to the sale of the right to procure people's organs after they die. There is a wide range of possible specifications of the futures market. There are, however, some major unaddressed efficiency concerns. This article presents this class of concerns and discusses the implication for organ futures markets. It identifies a number of inefficiency sources pertaining to crowding out, bad organs, costs and missed opportunities, family refusals, moral hazard and strength of the provided incentive. However, a complete assessment of futures market requires better knowledge regarding the potential reaction from donors, families and health professionals.

Family veto in organ donation: the experiences of Organ and Tissue Donation Coordinators in Ontario

PURPOSE

In Ontario, an individual's registered wish for organ donation is legally valid consent following death. Family veto occurs when the deceased donor's substitute decision-maker (SDM) overrides this consent to donate, evoking a legal and ethical conflict. The objective of this study was to examine the experiences of Organ and Tissue Donation Coordinators (OTDCs) working with SDMs who vetoed a deceased donor's consent for organ donation.

METHODS

Qualitative focus groups were conducted with ten OTDCs in Ontario, Canada who reported experience with family veto. An interpretative phenomenological approach informed data analysis. Themes emerged through team consensus and were further refined through collaborative and reflexive engagement.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged regarding family veto: 1) the significance of the OTDC role, 2) emotional distress and the "understandable" family veto, 3) barriers contributing to family veto, and 4) strategies towards a culture of organ donation. Findings highlighted the importance of patient advocacy in the OTDC role, while revealing the emotional distress of experiencing family veto. OTDCs identified timing and healthcare providers' perceived ambivalence toward organ donation as critical barriers to family authorization. Value-positive language, role reframing, and increased education were offered as strategies to address these barriers and reduce family veto.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights important considerations about organ donation authorization processes in Ontario. Findings support practice changes towards reducing family veto and further research nationally. Collaborations with key stakeholders are warranted to align healthcare practices, donation policies, and education initiatives towards a shared goal of increasing organ donation.