Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of presumed consent laws and institutions on deceased organ donation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article purports to advance the literature on the impact of presumed consent laws on deceased donation rates by examining the interactions between a presumed consent legal regime and other customs and institutions, using data on health expenditure, death rates caused by cerebro vascular diseases, motor vehicle accidents and homicides, legislation, legal systems, family consent, civil rights and liberties and donor registry systems, for 24 countries over a 14-year period. Countries in which presumed consent is enacted exhibit significantly higher donation rates only if family consent is routinely sought and a combined registry is maintained or neither practice is administered. Otherwise, presumed consent legislation does not have a sizeable impact on deceased donation rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As of April 2010, the first person consent system has been ratified in all states in the US except Kansas and Wisconsin [23].

  2. This strategy, known as “the Spanish model of organ procurement”, has been introduced in 1989 by the efforts of Dr. Rafael Matesanz and has been successfully implemented in Spain, followed by Italy and later by South Australia. The Spanish model adopts the principle of decentralization of the donor coordination through regional coordination and aims to cope with the obstacles faced by physicians and staff [5]. These include under-trained doctors, unidentified donors and the reluctance and incompetence to approach families to request donation. Therefore, Spanish model endorses continuous education and training of transplant coordinators to improve management and communication skills.

  3. A remarkable exception to this case is Austria and recently Czech Republic where presumed consent legislation is strictly enforced, that is families are ruled out of the decision-making process. Therefore, the organs of the donor can be procured unless the donor opposed the removal of her organs.

  4. If a country always seeks family consent, this means that the consent of the family is asked every time irrespective of the preferences of the donor (i.e. a deceased could have premortem allowed the removal of her organs but the hospital still asks the family or a deceased could have premortem opposed the removal of her organs but the hospital still asks the family).

  5. A combined registry indicates that the country allows both organ donors and organ retainers the right to express their wishes regarding organ donation by registering. On the other hand, a single registry indicates that the country allows either organ donors or organ retainers to express their wishes by registering, depending on the default rule (i.e. presumed or informed consent).

  6. The cause of extremely low deceased donations in Israel is the reservation on the definition of death and the belief that the Jewish Law forbidding desecration of the human body outlaws donation [25].

  7. In the first stage, the country-specific effects are estimated via FE excluding time-invariant and almost time-invariant variables. In the second stage, the country-specific effects are decomposed into an unexplained and an explained part by the regression on the time-invariant or almost time-invariant variables. In the third stage, a (standard error corrected) pooled OLS is performed by including all the time-variant and invariant variables in the model and the unexplained part (residuals) from the second stage. The third stage allows for computing the correct standard errors of the parameters of (almost) time-invariant variables.

  8. In the absence of country-specific effects and other explanatory factors, Abadie and Gay [1] found that the impact of presumed consent on deceased donation rates is much higher, around 15 percent on average once the year fixed effects have been accounted for. The reason is that without country-specific effects, the consent legislation variable soaks up most of the explanatory power of the unobserved heterogeneity and shows a higher-than-otherwise impact of presumed consent laws.

  9. The control of supply measures for donation policy purposes creates a paradox in organ collection because the promotion of deceased donation through continuous education and awareness programs contradicts policies that aim to reduce the prevalence of motor vehicle accidents and hand-gun crimes by raising awareness [2]. Recently, Dickert-Conlin et al. [7] found that organ donations due to motor vehicle accidents increase by 10 percent following helmet law repeals and that a nationwide elimination of helmet laws in the US would increase the annual supply of organ donors by less than 1 percent.

  10. In the preliminary analysis, a binary variable representing religious belief that takes the value of 1 for countries in which the majority of the population is catholic and 0 otherwise has been considered as a potential factor that might affect deceased donation rates. However, such a measurement will not represent the effect of religious beliefs on deceased donation because it does not take into account the practice of religion but merely represents a group of the population who consider themselves as Catholics.

  11. The author would like to thank an anonymous referee for pointing this out.

  12. In the specification analysis, a family veto dummy variable compiled from various sources has been considered as a potential explanatory factor. However, it has not been considered in the regressions for two reasons. First, family veto variable is highly correlated with consent legislation and registry variables, whose inclusion in the regressions rendered significant estimates but a lower than otherwise R-squared, confirming collinearity. Second, even if countries allow the right to veto donor's wishes, families do not use this right either because they do not want to oppose their loved one's wishes or do not actually aware whether such a right has been granted.

References

  1. Abadie, A., Gay, S.: The Impact of Presumed Consent Legislation on Cadaveric Organ Donation: A Cross Country Study. J. Health Econ 25, 599–620 (2006)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Annas, G.J.: The Paradoxes of Organ Transplantation. Am. J. Public Health 78, 621–622 (1988)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bryne, M.M., Thompson, P.: A positive analysis of financial incentives for cadaveric organ donation. J. Health Econ 20, 69–83 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Canellopoulou-Bottis, M.: A New Law on Organ Donation in Greece: One More Effort to Advance Transplants. Eur. J. Health Law 7, 427–439 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chang, G.J., Mahanty, H.D., Ascher, N.L., Roberts, J.P.: Expanding the donor pool: can the Spanish model work in the United States? Am. J. Transpl. 3, 1259–1263 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. CIA. The World Fact Book, URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook (2003). Accessed 18 February 2009

  7. Dickert-Conlin, S., Elder, T., Moore, B.: Donorcycles: Motorcycle Helmet Laws and the Supply of Organ Donors. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1471982 (2009)

  8. English, V.: Is presumed consent the answer to organ shortages? Yes. Br. Med. J. 334, 1088 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fleischhauer, K., Hermeren, G., Holm, S., Honnefelder, L., Kimura, R., Quintana, O., Serrao, D.: Comparative report on transplantation and relevant ethical problems in five European countries, and some reflections on Japan. Transpl. Int. 13, 266–275 (2000)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Freedom House. Freedom in the World Comparative Rankings. URL: http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/FIWAllScores.xls (2008). Accessed 18 February 2009

  11. Gevers, S., Janssen, A., Friele, R.: Consent Systems for Post Mortem Organ Donation in Europe. Eur. J. Health Law 11, 175–186 (2004)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gimbel, R.W., Strosberg, M.A., Lehrman, S.E., Gefenas, E., Taft, F.: Presumed consent and other predictors of Cadaveric Organ Donation in Europe. Transpl. 13, 17–23 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation. Data Tables. URL: http://data.transplant-observatory.org/paginas/informes/DatosUsuario.aspx (2008) Accessed 18 February 2009

  14. Grunfeld, G.B.: Ethical Issues in Organ Transplantation in Israel. Eubios J. Asian and Int. Bioeth. 6, 169 (1996)

  15. Healy, K.: The Political Economy of Presumed Consent. Department of Sociology, UCLA, Theory and Research in Comparative Social Analysis, Paper no.31 (2005)

  16. Jensen, T.R.: Organ Procurement: Various Legal Systems and their Effectiveness. Houst. J. Int. Law 22, 555–584 (2000)

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson, E.J., Goldstein, D.G.: Do defaults save lives? Science 302, 1338–1339 (2003)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Karatzas, T., Katsani, M., Mitropoulou, E., Nikolaou, E., Vosnides, A., Kostakis, A.: Substantial increase in cadaveric organ transplantation in Greece for the period 2001–2005. Transpl. Proc. 39, 797–800 (2007)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Matesanz, R.: Cadaveric Organ Donation: Comparison of legislation in various countries of Europe. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 13, 1632–1635 (1998)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. May, T., Ausilio, M.P., DeVita, M.A.: Patients, Families and Organ Donation: Who Should Decide? The Milbank Q. 78, 323–336 (2000)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Neto, G.B., Campelo, A.K., da Silva, E.N.: The Impact of Presumed Consent Law on Organ Donation: An Empirical Analysis from Quantile Regression for Longitudinal Data. Working paper 050107’2, University of California, Berkeley Program in Law & Economics (2007)

  22. Ngahooro, J., Gillett, G.: Over my dead body: the ethics of organ donation in New Zealand. The New Zealand Med. J. 117 (2004)

  23. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), http://www.optn.org. Accessed on 17 October 2009

  24. Plümber, T., Troeger, V.E.: Efficient Estimation of Time-Invariant and Rarely Changing Variables in Finite Sample Panel Analyses with Unit Fixed Effects. Policy Analysis 15, 124–139 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Steinbuch, R.: Kidneys, Cash and Kashrut: A Legal, Economic and Religious Analysis of Selling Kidneys. Houst. Law Rev. 45, 1529–1607 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tabarrok, A.: How to get real about organs. Econ J. Watch 1, 11–18 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tietzel, M.: In Praise of the Commons: Another Case Study. Eur. J. Law and Econ. 12, 159–171 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Transplant Procurement Management (TPM) International Registry of Donation and Transplantation, http://www.tpm.org/ (2008). Accessed 12 December 2008

  29. World Bank, Health, Nutrition, and Population statistics database, http://devdata.worldbank.org/hnpstats/ (2008). Accessed 2 February 2009

  30. World Health Organization, statistical information system (2008), http://www.who.int/whosis/en/index.html. Accessed 2 February 2009

  31. World Health Organization, WHO mortality database (2008), http://www.who.int/healthinfo/morttables/en/index.html. Accessed 2 February 2009

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Pavel Brezovsky (The Czech Transplantations Coordinating Center), Gregorio Garrido Cantarero (Organización Nacional de Trasplantes, Spain), Claudia Ferraro (Centro Nazionale Trapianti, Italy), Danica Avsec Letonja (Slovenija Transplant), Dagmar Vernet (Swisstransplant), Tamar Ashkenazi (Israel Ministry of Health), Bjørn Ursin Knudsen (The Danish National Board of Health), Colin White (The Irish Kidney Association), Phil Pocock (UK Transplant), Hendrik van Leiden (Dutch Transplant Foundation), Beverley Trinkle (United Network of Organ Sharing, US), Frank Ivis (Canadian Institute for Health Information), Susanne Venhaus (Deutsche Stiftung Organtransplantation), Daniel Holm and Charlotte Möller (The Swedish Council for organ and tissue donations), Annie Susanne Sønder and Bjørn Lien and Niels Grunnet (Scandiatransplant), Lauri Kyllönen (Helsinki University Hospital, Finland) and Anna Pszenny (Poltransplant, Poland) for providing valuable information on national donor registry systems and family consent practices.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University of Bologna, Piazza Scaravilli, 2, 40126, Bologna, Italy

    Fırat Bilgel

  2. Rotterdam Institute of Law and Economics, Erasmus University, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Fırat Bilgel

Authors
  1. Fırat Bilgel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fırat Bilgel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bilgel, F. The impact of presumed consent laws and institutions on deceased organ donation. Eur J Health Econ 13, 29–38 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-010-0277-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-010-0277-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation