Priority in Organ Allocation to Previously Registered Donors: Public Perceptions of the Fairness and Effectiveness of Priority Systems

Priority for Organ Donors in the Allocation of Organs: Priority Rules from the Perspective of Equality of Opportunity

Should priority in the allocation of organs be given to those who have previously donated or declared their willingness to do so? This article examines the Israeli priority rule in light of two prominent critiques of priority rules, pertaining to failure to reciprocate and unfairness. The scope and content of these critiques are interpreted from the perspective of equality of opportunity. Because the Israeli priority rule may be reasonably criticized for unfairness and failing to reward certain behaviors, the article develops an adjusted priority rule, which removes and adjust the elements in the Israeli priority rule deemed problematic. However, such a priority rule is complex to the extent that it may fail to increase donation rates and furthermore introduce new concerns of fairness, as the better off may be better able to navigate the complex adjusted priority rule.

Organ donation: Key factors influencing the younger generation's decision-making in China

Background

The organ transplantation sector in China is facing a severe shortage of donors, and the organ donation rate needs to be increased. Since 2015, voluntary donation by citizens has become the only source of organs for transplantation in China. In recent years, there has been a relatively positive change in young people's attitudes toward organ donation after death. The aim of the study was to understand young people's perceptions and attitudes toward organ donation and the factors that influence them and can positively impact the promotion of organ donation.

Methods

By analyzing relevant literature and legal texts, we developed a questionnaire. Information was obtained through questionnaires and interviews, and 501 valid questionnaires were returned from the target group. A chi-square test was used to examine whether there were significant differences in the willingness to organ donation among young people with different characteristics. A factor analysis was used to investigate the main factors influencing the different attitudes of young people toward organ donation, and a one-way ANOVA was used to examine whether young people with different characteristics were affected differently by different factors.

Results

In our survey of young people aged 18-30 years, 99.2% of respondents knew about organ donation, 47.1% were willing to donate organs, and 15.2% understood that there were corresponding laws and regulations for organ donation. The study's findings showed that urban residents are more willing to be organ donators than rural residents; people with higher education levels have better awareness and are more willing to donate an organ; and people with religious beliefs are more likely to donate organs. The main factors that support the willingness of young people to donate are the social environment that provides support, their optimism in dealing with death, and their desire to realize their final value after death. The main factors for those unwilling to donate were low awareness or misconceptions about organ donation among individuals and their families and their attitudes toward death. As the people who took the questionnaire are probably interested in organ donation, the sample results will show a higher percentage of people who know about organ donation. We hope to discuss further with a larger and broader sample coverage to improve the estimates' validity and reflect the overall picture more accurately in a future study.

Conclusion

Young people knew about organ donation but had a low depth of awareness. Household registration type, education level, and religious affiliation significantly correlate with people's willingness to donate. The supportive environment for organ donation in society and the correct understanding of the organ donation process and laws and regulations can influence people's willingness to donate.

Healthcare students support opt-out organ donation for practical and moral reasons

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Changes to deceased organ donation policy in the USA, including opt-out and priority systems, have been proposed to increase registration and donation rates. To study attitudes towards such policies, we surveyed healthcare students to assess support for opt-out and priority systems and reasons for support or opposition.

METHODS

We investigated associations with supporting opt-out, including organ donation knowledge, altruism, trust in the healthcare system, prioritising autonomy and participants' evaluation of the moral severity of incorrectly assuming consent in opt-in systems ('opt-in error') or opt-out systems ('opt-out error'), by conducting an online survey among healthcare students at a large academic institution.

RESULTS

Of 523 respondents, 86% supported opt-out, including 53% who strongly supported the policy. The most popular reason for supporting opt-out was the potential for increased donation rates, followed by convenience for those not registered but willing to donate. The most popular reason for opposing opt-out was the belief that presuming consent is morally wrong. Those strongly supporting opt-out viewed the opt-in error as more morally unacceptable, and had higher knowledge and altruism scores. Those opposing opt-out viewed the opt-out error as more unacceptable, and had higher autonomy scores. 48% of respondents supported priority within opt-in systems; 31% supported priority in opt-out.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong support for opt-out organ donation among healthcare students, influenced by both practical and moral considerations.

Community preferences for the allocation of scarce healthcare resources during the COVID-19 pandemic: a review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this thematic review is to examine the literature on the publics' preferences of scarce medical resource allocation during COVID-19.

STUDY DESIGN

Literature review.

METHODS

A review of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus was performed between December 2019 and June 2022 for eligible articles.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies using three methodologies and spanning five continents were included. Five key themes were identified: (1) prioritise the youngest; (2) save the most lives; (3) egalitarian allocation approaches; (4) prioritise healthcare workers; and (5) bias against particular groups. The public gave high priority to allocation that saved the most lives, particularly to patients who are younger and healthcare workers. Themes present but not supported as broadly were giving priority to individuals with disabilities, high frailty or those with behaviours that may have contributed to their ill-health (e.g. smokers). Allocation involving egalitarian approaches received the least support among community members.

CONCLUSION

The general public prefer rationing scarce medical resources in the COVID-19 pandemic based on saving the most lives and giving priority to the youngest and frontline healthcare workers rather than giving preference to patients with disabilities, frailty or perceived behaviours that may have contributed to their own ill-health. There is also little public support for allocation based on egalitarian strategies.

French People's Views on the Allocation of Organs for Transplantation

BACKGROUND

French laypeople's views on the allocation of organs for transplantation were examined.

METHODS

A total of 199 adults make judgments of priority for a liver transplant in 48 realistic scenarios composed of all combinations of 4 factors: 1. probability of success, 2. life expectancy without transplant, 3. level of responsibility for liver failure (eg, substance abuse in the past), and 4. social situation (eg, young mother with 2 young children). In all scenarios, the patients were in need of liver transplant. The ratings were subjected to cluster analysis and analyses of variance.

RESULTS

Six qualitatively different positions were found that were termed Probability of Success and Life Expectancy (6%), Family Responsibilities (8%), Family Responsibilities and Risky Behavior (28%), Risky Behavior and Family Responsibilities (22%), Risky Behavior (11%), and Always a Priority (25%). Regular church attendees expressed more often the Risky Behavior and Family Responsibilities position and less often the Always a Priority position than atheists. Female participants expressed more often the Risky Behavior position than male participants.

CONCLUSIONS

The French laypeople in our sample think that when assessing priority for transplant, criteria additional to medical urgency or the estimated utility in terms of expected life span after transplant should be taken into account. These criteria are the patient's lack of responsibility for the liver failure (ie, not causing it by drinking or using drugs) and the extent of the patient's social responsibilities (with active employment and dependents to care for).

Current opinions in organ allocation

Existing methods of academic publication provide limited opportunity to obtain stakeholder input on issues of broad interest. This article reports the results of an experiment to produce a collaborative, crowdsourced article examining a current controversial issue in transplant medicine (hereby referred to as the "C4 Article"). The editorial team as a whole selected the topic of organ allocation, then divided into six sections, each supported by an individual editorial team. Widely promoted by the American Journal of Transplantation, the C4 Article was open for public comment for 1 month. The nonblinded editorial teams reviewed the contributions daily and interacted with contributors in near-real time to clarify and expand on the content received. Draft summaries of each section were posted and subsequently revised as new contributions were received. One hundred ninety-four individuals viewed the manuscript, and 107 individuals contributed to the manuscript during the submission period. The article engaged the international transplant community in producing a contemporary delineation of issues of agreement and controversy related to organ allocation and identified opportunities for new policy development. This initial experience successfully demonstrated the potential of a crowdsourced academic manuscript to advance a broad-based understanding of a complex issue.

Public, medical professionals' and patients' preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: study protocol for discrete choice experiments

INTRODUCTION

Organ transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with severe organ failure. Nevertheless, donor organs are a scarce resource resulting in a large mismatch between supply and demand. Therefore, priority-setting leads to the dilemma of how these scarce organs should be allocated and who should be considered eligible to receive a suitable organ. In order to improve the supply-demand mismatch in transplantation medicine, this study explores preferences of different stakeholders (general public, medical professionals and patients) for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation in Germany. The aims are (1) to determine criteria and preferences, which are relevant for the allocation of scarce donor organs and (2) to compare the results between the three target groups to derive strategies for health policy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We outline the study protocol for discrete choice experiments, where respondents are presented with different choices including attributes with varied attribute levels. They were asked to choose between these choice sets. First, systematic reviews will be conducted to identify the state of art. Subsequently, focus group discussions with the public and patients as well as expert interviews with medical professionals will follow to establish the attributes that are going to be included in the experiments and to verify the results of the systematic reviews. Using this qualitative exploratory work, discrete choice studies will be designed to quantitatively assess preferences. We will use a D-efficient fractional factorial design to survey a total sample of 600 respondents according to the public, medical professionals and patients each. Multinomial conditional logit model and latent class model will be analysed to estimate the final results.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has received Ethics Approval from the Hannover Medical School Human Ethics Committee (Vote number: 7921_BO_K_2018). Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, workshops with stakeholders and peer-reviewed journal articles.

Israel's 2008 Organ Transplant Law: continued ethical challenges to the priority points model

In 2008, responding to a widening gap between need and availability of transplant organs, Israel's Ministry of Health adopted a program of incentivized cadaveric organ donation. The Organ Transplant Law rewards individuals with prioritized access to organs on the condition that they participate in procurement efforts. Priority is awarded in the form of additional points allocated to the individual's organ recipient profile. Although Israel has experienced moderate gains in the years since the law's implementation, these have not been sufficient to satisfy the demand. Furthermore, the law faces logistical and ethical challenges. These challenges could potentially be resolved by shifting the organ procurement default to routine retrieval rather than the current default of presumed refusal to organ retrieval.This paper examines philosophical and practical challenges to the priority points policy and weighs whether Israel should consider an alternative policy of routine retrieval of transplant organs with the option to opt out of the donor pool.

Community preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: a discrete choice study

BACKGROUND

Demand for organs for transplant exceeds supply. There is an ongoing debate about the relative weighting that should be given to different allocation criteria. Little is known about the relative weight the community places on various allocation criteria. This study aims to determine community preferences for organ allocation.

METHODS

Community respondents recruited from a web-based panel chose which patient received a transplant in 30 scenarios presenting two hypothetical patients. Patients were described in age, sex, previous transplants, whether they or family were registered donors, had caring responsibilities, adherence, time on waiting list, estimated survival and quality of life (QOL) with and without transplant, comorbidities, and lifestyle factors, such as smoking. Analyses were conducted in NLOGIT 5.0, using a mixed-logit model.

RESULTS

Two thousand fifty-one respondents aged 18 to 83 years completed the survey. All attributes significantly influenced recipient choice except sex and having diabetes. Younger patients were preferred over older patients. Family member donor registration, having caring responsibilities, and longer time on waiting list increased priority. Pretransplant life expectancy was valued more highly than posttransplant life expectancy; 1 year less of pretransplant life expectancy required an increase of 1.49 years in posttransplant life expectancy to compensate. Posttransplant QOL was valued more highly than pretransplant QOL.

CONCLUSION

Lower pretransplant life expectancy (need) was more important than higher posttransplant life expectancy (utility). Although current allocation algorithms are consistent with community preferences for prioritizing children and time on the waiting list, favoring patients with high predicted posttransplant survival as potential recipients may not be aligned with community preferences.

AST/ASTS workshop on increasing organ donation in the United States: creating an "arc of change" from removing disincentives to testing incentives

The American Society of Transplantation (AST) and American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS) convened a workshop on June 2-3, 2014, to explore increasing both living and deceased organ donation in the United States. Recent articles in the lay press on illegal organ sales and transplant tourism highlight the impact of the current black market in kidneys that accompanies the growing global organ shortage. We believe it important not to conflate the illegal market for organs, which we reject in the strongest possible terms, with the potential in the United States for concerted action to remove all remaining financial disincentives for donors and critically consider testing the impact and acceptability of incentives to increase organ availability in the United States. However, we do not support any trials of direct payments or valuable considerations to donors or families based on a process of market-assigned values of organs. This White Paper represents a summary by the authors of the deliberations of the Incentives Workshop Group and has been approved by both AST and ASTS Boards.

Decision solution, data manipulation and trust: The (un-)willingness to donate organs in Germany in critical times

In 2011 and 2012 a change of rules and a data-manipulation scandal focused German public attention on organ donation. This increased citizens' background knowledge as well as their willingness to respond to surveys. The present study is an effort to seize this research opportunity and to create evidence on which policy recommendations can be conceivably based. It uses data from two major representative surveys from 2011 to 2012 to address four central questions: Which characteristics, experiences and attitudes correlate with the written or unwritten willingness of individuals to donate (WTD) their own organs post-mortem? How has the WTD changed over time? To what extent does the WTD depend on normative trust? Which factors correlate with trust? The data is analyzed through summary statistics and regression models. Several hypotheses regarding factors connected with the WTD are confirmed in the survey results. Altruistic motives, relevant knowledge and trust are decisive. The special role of trust is corroborated by the data. As current German politics prevents the introduction of post-mortem donation incentives, potential policy making proposals are restricted to institutional changes to regain trust including the implementation of an organ donor registry and the advancement of counselling talks with general practitioners.