Samanta & Samanta: Medical Law Concentrate
Chapter 7: Outline answers to essay questions
“An opt-out or presumed consent system for deceased organ donation would be preferable to the current opt-in regime of English law”. Discuss.
As a starting point, you might wish to consider (briefly) why organ donation is important. For example, kidney transplantation has been a very effective therapy for people with kidney failure. Not only does kidney transplantation improve quality of life but it is also very cost effective. It is estimated that following a kidney transplant overall savings (over ten years) will amount to £250,000.
Unfortunately the rate of procurement of deceased organs is particularly low in the UK compared with other European countries. You might wish to read “Taking organ transplantation to 2020” which outlines the main recommendations of the Organ Donation Task Force (2008). Some of these recommendations include early testing for brainstem death, increasing the number of transplant co-ordinators, high profile media campaigns and well-supported co-ordination initiatives between domestic and overseas centres to enhance successful organ retrieval and use.
The current system in England for deceased organ donation is ‘opt-in’. This means that people who wish to donate their organs and tissues must make these wishes known proactively and prior to their death (while they have capacity). This can be achieved by carrying a donor card and registering intentions, or by instructing a nominated representative. The concept of appropriate consent is provided for in section 3(6) of the Human Tissue Act 2004 (HTA 2004). Removal of organs or tissues without appropriate consent is an offence under section 5(1) of the HTA 2004 and the penalty for conviction is up to three years of imprisonment, a fine, or both (section 5(7) HTA 2004).
According to the HTA 2004 Code of Practice 1 (2009: paragraph 74) if adults have given valid consent for post mortem donation, removal and storage of their organs or tissues, then that is sufficient in law. However, it is customary to ask for consent from near relatives of the deceased. Paragraph 75 states that if those who are close to the deceased object to donation, then they should be encouraged to accept the deceased’s wishes. They do not have the right to overrule these wishes. Nevertheless, paragraph 76 guides healthcare staff to consider the potential negative effects of proceeding with removal of organs when there is strong opposition from relatives. In practice, therefore, even if pre mortem consent has been given, the consent of close relatives will still be sought and this could be either from a nominated representative (section 4 of HTA 2004) or someone who stands in a qualifying relationship (section 27(4) of the HTA 2004). Note that those who are in a qualifying relationship are ranked in hierarchical order.
The current opt-in system in England presents considerable hurdles to the post mortem removal of organs. First the deceased would have had to make her wishes known proactively before death and second, in practice, relatives’ consent needs to be obtained. This can often be difficult, especially as relatives are in a grieving state immediately after the death of their loved ones. It has therefore been proposed that an opt-out system should be used. Opt-out systems are based on the concept of ‘presumed’ consent, namely it is presumed that a person would consent to have her organs removed after death unless that person has registered his or her objections to posthumous donation. This is based on the assumption that most people would act altruistically and wish to donate their organs after death. Several countries, such as Belgium, Austria and Spain, use an opt-out system and have considerably increased the supply of organs. There are two main variations to this regime. In a soft opt-out system, if there is no evidence of the person’s refusal to donate, relatives may override the policy if they object. Under those circumstances, organ donation cannot proceed. In the hard opt-out system, relatives’ wishes do not override the policy and organ donation can proceed. You may wish to consider the ethics of employing an opt-out system. For example, would everyone wish to act altruistically? Are there other specific beliefs and wishes that the deceased may have had that should be taken into account? Is a soft opt-out system preferable to a hard opt-out system in that there is at least some power that relatives may exert if they object to organ retrieval from their deceased loved one?
Both systems described are based upon a willingness for organ donation to proceed, either through actual consent (or authorisation), or presumed consent, of the deceased and/or endorsement by relatives (in the opt-in and soft opt-out systems). Remember, however, that there are alternative sources of organs (living donation and xenotransplantation (organs obtained from animals) although to date the latter has had a relatively small part to play. The developments of medical technology are now producing artificial organs and it is possible that within a few decades, artificially produced organs might dominate the scene meaning that there will be less need for voluntary human donation. Remember to support your answer with reference to the academic literature. For example, reference to the idea that presumed consent is no consent at all. Finally, remember to provide a conclusion to your answer, linking this back to the essay question.
1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive. Auguste Comte. Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/comte/
2. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Auguste Comte. Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comte/
3. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The History of Utilitarianism. Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/utilitarianism-history/
4. Moll J, Krueger F, Zahn R, Pardini M, de Oliveira-Souza R, Grafman J. Human fronto-mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:15623–15628.[PMC free article][PubMed]
5. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Egoism. Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/egoism/
6. Rhodes R, Schiano T. Transplant tourism in China: a tale of two transplants. Am J Bioeth. 2010;10:3–11.[PubMed]
7. Eghtesad B, Jain AB, Fung JJ. Living donor liver transplantation: ethics and safety. Transplant Proc. 2003;35:51–52.[PubMed]
8. Starzl TE, Marchioro TL, Porter KA, Brettschneider L. Homotransplantation of the liver. Transplantation. 1967;5:Suppl: 790–uppl: 803.[PMC free article][PubMed]
9. Ciria R, Briceno J, Rufian S, Luque A, Lopez-Cillero P. Donation after cardiac death: where, when, and how? Transplant Proc. 2012;44:1470–1474.[PubMed]
10. Domínguez-Gil B, Delmonico FL, Shaheen FA, Matesanz R, O’Connor K, Minina M, Muller E, Young K, Manyalich M, Chapman J, et al. The critical pathway for deceased donation: reportable uniformity in the approach to deceased donation. Transpl Int. 2011;24:373–378.[PubMed]
11. Gries CJ, White DB, Truog RD, Dubois J, Cosio CC, Dhanani S, Chan KM, Corris P, Dark J, Fulda G, et al. An official American Thoracic Society/International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation/Society of Critical Care Medicine/Association of Organ and Procurement Organizations/United Network of Organ Sharing Statement: ethical and policy considerations in organ donation after circulatory determination of death. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188:103–109.[PubMed]
12. World Health Organization. WHO guiding principles on human cell, tissue and organ transplantation. Transplantation. 2010;90:229–233.[PubMed]
13. Saunders B. Normative consent and opt-out organ donation. J Med Ethics. 2010;36:84–87.[PubMed]
14. Simmons AJ. Moral principles and political obligations. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1979.
15. Estlund D. Democratic authority: a philosophical framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2009.
16. Gill MB. Presumed consent, autonomy, and organ donation. J Med Philos. 2004;29:37–59.[PubMed]
17. Council of Europe. International figures on donation and transplantation-2012. Available from: http://www.transplant-observatory.org/Documents/NEWSLETTER2012.pdf.
18. Matesanz R, Miranda B. A decade of continuous improvement in cadaveric organ donation: the Spanish model. J Nephrol. 2002;15:22–28.[PubMed]
19. Matesanz R. Spain: a leader in harvesting hearts for transplantation. Circulation. 2007;115:f45–f46.[PubMed]
20. Matesanz R. Factors influencing the adaptation of the Spanish Model of organ donation. Transpl Int. 2003;16:736–741.[PubMed]
21. Rodríguez-Arias D, Wright L, Paredes D. Success factors and ethical challenges of the Spanish Model of organ donation. Lancet. 2010;376:1109–1112.[PubMed]
22. Rosenblum AM, Horvat LD, Siminoff LA, Prakash V, Beitel J, Garg AX. The authority of next-of-kin in explicit and presumed consent systems for deceased organ donation: an analysis of 54 nations. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27:2533–2546.[PMC free article][PubMed]
23. Maraví-Poma E, Martín A, Maraví-Aznar A, Iturralde O, Compains E, Alvarez J, Cabal S, Maraví-Aznar E, Teijeira R, Unzué J, et al. [Transplant coordination and logistics of intra and extra-hospital cadaver donor tissue. “The Pamplona Model”. Sequence of tasks performed from 1992-2006] An Sist Sanit Navar. 2006;29 Suppl 2:45–62.[PubMed]
24. Matesanz R. Transplants, money, and other miserable things. Nefrologia. 2001;21:435–436.[PubMed]
25. Matesanz R. Transplantations, management, and health systems. Nefrologia. 2001;21 Suppl 4:3–12.[PubMed]
26. Sque M, Long T, Payne S. Organ donation: key factors influencing families’ decision-making. Transplant Proc. 2005;37:543–546.[PubMed]
27. Martinez JM, López JS, Martín A, Martín MJ, Scandroglio B, Martín JM. Organ donation and family decision-making within the Spanish donation system. Soc Sci Med. 2001;53:405–421.[PubMed]
28. Verheijde JL, Rady MY, McGregor JL, Friederich-Murray C. Enforcement of presumed-consent policy and willingness to donate organs as identified in the European Union Survey: the role of legislation in reinforcing ideology in pluralistic societies. Health Policy. 2009;90:26–31.[PubMed]
29. Spital A, Taylor JS. In defense of routine recovery of cadaveric organs: a response to Walter Glannon. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2008;17:337–343.[PubMed]
30. Potts M, Verheijde JL, Rady MY, Evans DW. Normative consent and presumed consent for organ donation: a critique. J Med Ethics. 2010;36:498–499.[PubMed]
31. Taylor CCW. Plato’s totalitarianism. Polis. Vol. 5. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1986. p. 4e29. Reprinted in Plato 2: Ethics, Politics, Religion, and the Soul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999: 280e96.
32. Dennis JM, Hanson P, Veatch RM. An evaluation of the ethics of presumed consent and a proposal based on required response. UNOS Update. 1994;10:16–21.[PubMed]
33. The Canadian Legal Information Institute. CanLII Database. Available from: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h20/latest/rso-1990-c-h20.html.
34. Bard JS. Lack of political will and public trust dooms presumed consent. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12:44–46.[PubMed]
35. Callender CO, Miles PV. Obstacles to organ donation in ethnic minorities. Pediatr Transplant. 2001;5:383–385.[PubMed]
36. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. City of New Haven: Yale University Press; 2008.
37. Whyte KP, Selinger E, Caplan AL, Sadowski J. Nudge, nudge or shove, shove-the right way for nudges to increase the supply of donated cadaver organs. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12:32–39.[PubMed]
38. Gilligan C, Sanson-Fisher RW, Turon H. The organ donation conundrum. Prog Transplant. 2012;22:312–316.[PubMed]
39. Healy K. Do presumed consent laws raise organ procurement rates? DePaul Law Review. 2006;55:1017–1043.
40. Donate Life America. Donate Life America Report Card 2014. Available from: http://donatelife.net/2014-annual-update-released/
41. Australian Government Organ and Tissue Authority. Facts and statistics. Available from: http://www.donatelife.gov.au/Discover/Facts-and-Statistics.html.
42. Australian Government Organ and Tissue Authority. Performance Report 2013. Available from: http://www.donatelife.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/OTA_2013_Performance_Report.pdf.
43. Anatomical Gift Act (2006) The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Available from: http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Anatomical Gift Act (2006)
44. Available from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-98/pdf/STATUTE-98-Pg2339.pdf.
45. Campbell D, Davidson N. Illegal kidney trade booms as new organ is “sold every hour”. The Guardian. City of New Haven: Yale University Press; 2012.
46. Goyal M, Mehta RL, Schneiderman LJ, Sehgal AR. Economic and health consequences of selling a kidney in India. JAMA. 2002;288:1589–1593.[PubMed]
47. Zargooshi J. Quality of life of Iranian kidney “donors” J Urol. 2001;166:1790–1799.[PubMed]
48. Kass L. Life, liberty, and the defense of dignity: the challenge for bioethics. San Francisco CA: Encounter Books; 2004.
49. Sandel MJ. What money can’t buy: the moral limits of markets. Available from: http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/s/sandel00.pdf.
50. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 6th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008.
51. Cohen IG. Transplant tourism: the ethics and regulation of international markets for organs. J Law Med Ethics. 2013;41:269–285.[PubMed]
52. Cohen IG. The price of everything, the value of nothing: Reframing the commodification debate. In: Anderson E, editor. Value in ethics and economics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1995. p. 144, 172.
53. Danovitch GM, Leichtman AB. Kidney vending: the “Trojan horse” of organ transplantation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;1:1133–1135.[PubMed]
54. Delmonico FL. The development of the Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23:3381–3382.[PubMed]
55. World Health Assembly. Human organ and tissue transplantation. Available from: http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA63/A63_R22-en.pdf.
56. Danovitch GM, Chapman J, Capron AM, Levin A, Abbud-Filho M, Al Mousawi M, Bennett W, Budiani-Saberi D, Couser W, Dittmer I, et al. Organ trafficking and transplant tourism: the role of global professional ethical standards-the 2008 Declaration of Istanbul. Transplantation. 2013;95:1306–1312.[PubMed]
57. Agarwal SK, Srivastava RK, Gupta S, Tripathi S. Evolution of the Transplantation of Human Organ Act and law in India. Transplantation. 2012;94:110–113.[PubMed]
58. The Protection Project. Philippines. A human rights report on trafficking in persons, especially women and children. Available from: http://www.protectionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Philippines.pdf.
59. Rizvi SA, Naqvi SA, Zafar MN, Hussain Z, Hashmi A, Hussain M, Akhtar SF, Ahmed E, Aziz T, Sultan G, et al. A renal transplantation model for developing countries. Am J Transplant. 2011;11:2302–2307.[PubMed]
60. The Protection Project. Egypt. A Human rights report on trafficking in persons, especially women and children. Available from: http://www.protectionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Egypt.pdf.
61. Instituto Nacional de Salud Subdirection Red Nacional de Laboratorios Coordinacion Nacional Red Donacion y Transplantes. Informe Red Donacion y Transplantes 2010. Available from: http://www.ins.gov.co/lineas-de-accion/Red-Nacional-Laboratorios/Estadsticas/Informe Red Donacion y Trasplantes Vol 1 2011.pdf.
62. Baquero A, Alberú J. Ethical challenges in transplant practice in Latin America: the Aguascalientes Document. Nefrologia. 2011;31:275–285.[PubMed]
63. Available from: http://ftp.saude.sp.gov.br/ftpsessp/bibliote/informe_eletronico/2012/iels.fev.12/Iels27/U_PT-MS-GM-201_070212.pdf.
64. Glazier A, Danovitch G. A policy for transparency. Available from: http://hottproject.com/userfiles/PDF’s news/ELPAT2013ProgrammeBookweb.pdf. [PubMed]
65. Lin SS, Rich L, Pal JD, Sade RM. Prisoners on death row should be accepted as organ donors. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:1773–1779.[PMC free article][PubMed]
66. Financial incentives for organ donation. A report of the OPTN/UNOS Ethics Committee Payment Subcommittee. Available from: http: //optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/resources/bioethics.asp?index=4.
67. Chkhotua A. Incentives for organ donation: pros and cons. Transplant Proc. 2012;44:1793–1794.[PubMed]
68. Matas AJ, Satel S, Munn S, Richards JR, Tan-Alora A, Ambagtsheer FJ, Asis MD, Baloloy L, Cole E, Crippin J, et al. Incentives for organ donation: proposed standards for an internationally acceptable system. Am J Transplant. 2012;12:306–312.[PMC free article][PubMed]
69. Available from: http:// conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/186.htm.
70. Available from: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/t7/
71. Lacetera N, Macis M, Stith SS. Removing financial barriers to organ and bone marrow donation: the effect of leave and tax legislation in the U.S. J Health Econ. 2014;33:43–56.[PubMed]
72. Sells RA. What is transplantation law and whom does it serve? Transplant Proc. 2003;35:1191–1194.[PubMed]
73. Malakoutian T, Hakemi MS, Nassiri AA, Rambod M, Haghighi AN, Broumand B, Fazel I. Socioeconomic status of Iranian living unrelated kidney donors: a multicenter study. Transplant Proc. 2007;39:824–825.[PubMed]
74. Haghighi AN, Ghahramani N. Living unrelated kidney donor transplantation in Iran. Nat Clin Pract Nephrol. 2006;2:E1.[PubMed]
75. Nejatisafa AA, Mortaz-Hedjri S, Malakoutian T, Arbabi M, Hakemi MS, Haghighi AN, Mohammadi MR, Fazel I. Quality of life and life events of living unrelated kidney donors in Iran: a multicenter study. Transplantation. 2008;86:937–940.[PubMed]
76. Padilla B, Bayog D, Uy NL, Gueco I, Nazareno-Rosales L, Chua A, Almazan-Gomez L, Bonzon D, Balmores B, Cabral E. The Philippines is not the site for incentivized organ donation. Am J Transplant. 2012;12:1956.[PubMed]
77. Awaya T, Siruno L, Toledano SJ, Aguilar F, Shimazono Y, De Castro LD. Failure of informed consent in compensated non-related kidney donation in the Philippines. Asian Bioeth Rev. 2009;1:138–143.
78. Wu X, Fang Q. Financial compensation for deceased organ donation in China. J Med Ethics. 2013;39:378–379.[PubMed]
79. Ravitsky V. Incentives for postmortem organ donation: ethical and cultural considerations. J Med Ethics. 2013;39:380–381.[PubMed]
80. Ofri D. In Israel, a new approach to organ donation. Available from: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/in-israel-a-new-approach-to-organ-donation/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0.
81. Lavee J, Ashkenazi T, Stoler A, Cohen J, Beyar R. Preliminary marked increase in the national organ donation rate in Israel following implementation of a new organ transplantation law. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:780–785.[PubMed]
82. Lavee J, Ashkenazi T, Gurman G, Steinberg D. A new law for allocation of donor organs in Israel. Lancet. 2010;375:1131–1133.[PubMed]
83. Lavee J. Ethical amendments to the Israeli Organ Transplant Law. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:1614.[PubMed]
84. Trivers RL. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q Rev Biol. 1971;46:35–37.
85. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Allocation of deceased kidneys. Available from: http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/PoliciesandBylaws2/policies/pdfs/policy_7.pdf.
86. Bramstedt KA. Is it ethical to prioritize patients for organ allocation according to their values about organ donation? Prog Transplant. 2006;16:170–174.[PubMed]
87. Quigley M, Wright L, Ravitsky V. Organ donation and priority points in Israel: an ethical analysis. Transplantation. 2012;93:970–973.[PubMed]
88. Lavee J. Organ transplantation using organs taken from executed prisoners in China--a call for the cessation of Israeli participation in the process. Harefuah. 2006;145:749–52, 781.[PubMed]