Stephen Dubner looks closer at a BMJ opinion on the subject:
Now for the dialysis patient. Let’s say she’s on a waiting list for a new kidney. But there is a good chance she’ll die before receiving a kidney, since far too few organs are being donated through traditional means to satisfy the demand. What happens, however, if instead of assuming that people do not wish to donate their organs in the event of an untimely death, you assume that they do? The latter option is known as presumed consent, and is practiced in some European countries. How well does it work?
Related posts:
- Poll: Should we loosen the restrictions on organ donation?
- Organ donation for freedom
- My take: Ted Kennedy, media appearances, organ donation
- Organ donation incentive
- Poll: How can we increase the supply of donor kidneys?
- Kidney donation and reality TV
- The controversy over organ donations after cardiac death
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
Miamimed had an interesting view concerning organ donation. One that puts a different light on the topic of presumed consent. In this post
http://medicaleconomics.blogspot.com/2007/03/organ-transplantation-how-to-bankrupt.html
He argues quite well that a surge in organ supply may very well bankrupt the US healthcare system. When an something is given for free there is infinite demand. Perhaps instead of presumed consent the better option is to offer benefits for organ donation, such as taking on some funeral costs.
Given the zeitgeist of the time for the retreat of liberty before all claims for better health, why even let people opt out.
Everything subservient to health, everything for health, nothing incompatible with health.
—Mussolini, modern paraphrase
Comments on this entry are closed.