Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Nov 22:13:32.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-13-32.

Consenting options for posthumous organ donation: presumed consent and incentives are not favored

Affiliations

Consenting options for posthumous organ donation: presumed consent and incentives are not favored

Muhammad M Hammami et al. BMC Med Ethics. .

Abstract

Background: Posthumous organ procurement is hindered by the consenting process. Several consenting systems have been proposed. There is limited information on public relative attitudes towards various consenting systems, especially in Middle Eastern/Islamic countries.

Methods: We surveyed 698 Saudi Adults attending outpatient clinics at a tertiary care hospital. Preference and perception of norm regarding consenting options for posthumous organ donation were explored. Participants ranked (1, most agreeable) the following, randomly-presented, options from 1 to 11: no-organ-donation, presumed consent, informed consent by donor-only, informed consent by donor-or-surrogate, and mandatory choice; the last three options ± medical or financial incentive.

Results: Mean(SD) age was 32(9) year, 27% were males, 50% were patients' companions, 60% had ≥ college education, and 20% and 32%, respectively, knew an organ donor or recipient. Mandated choice was among the top three choices for preference of 54% of respondents, with an overall median[25%,75%] ranking score of 3[2,6], and was preferred over donor-or-surrogate informed consent (4[2,7], p < 0.001), donor-only informed consent (5[3,7], p < 0.001), and presumed consent (7[3,10], p < 0.001). The addition of a financial or medical incentive, respectively, reduced ranking of mandated choice to 7[4,9], p < 0.001, and 5[3,8], p < 0.001; for donor-or-surrogate informed consent to 7[5,9], p < 0.001, and 5[3,7], p = 0.004; and for donor-only informed consent to 8[6,10], p < 0.001, and 5[3,7], p = 0.56. Distribution of ranking score of perception of norm and preference were similar except for no-organ donation (11[7,11] vs. 11[6,11], respectively, p = 0.002). Compared to females, males more perceived donor-or-surrogate informed consent as the norm (3[1,6] vs. 5[3,7], p < 0.001), more preferred mandated choice with financial incentive option (6[3,8] vs. 8[4,9], p < 0.001), and less preferred mandated choice with medical incentive option (7[4,9] vs. 5[2,7], p < 0.001). There was no association between consenting options ranking scores and age, health status, education level, or knowing an organ donor or recipient.

Conclusions: We conclude that: 1) most respondents were in favor of posthumous organ donation, 2) mandated choice system was the most preferred and presumed consent system was the least preferred, 3) there was no difference between preference and perception of norm in consenting systems ranking, and 4) financial (especially in females) and medical (especially in males) incentives reduced preference.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Personal preference for four organ donation consenting systems. Open bars indicate the percentage of time the highest ranking scores (1–3) were chosen. Bars with horizontal lines indicate intermediate ranking scores (4–8) and black bars lowest ranking scores (9–11).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Effect of adding medical or financial incentives to consenting options on personal preference and perception of norm. Open bars indicate the percentage of time the highest ranking scores (1–3) were chosen. Bars with horizontal lines indicate intermediate ranking scores (4–8) and black bars lowest ranking scores (9–11).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Clark PAC. Financial Incentives for Cadaveric Organ Donation: An Ethical Analysis. The Internet Journal of Law, Healthcare and Ethics; 2006. p. 4(1).
    1. Sheehy E, Conrad SL, Brigham LE, Luskin R, Weber P, Eakin M, Schkade L, Hunsicker L. Estimating the number of potential organ donors in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(7):667–74. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa021271. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Ministry of Health. Center for Organ Transplantation. Annual Report 2008. Available at Saudi Center for Organ Transplantation. [ http://www.scot.org.sa/en/], accessed 10 June 2012.
    1. Abadie A, Gay S. The impact of presumed consent legislation on cadaveric organ donation: a cross-country study. J Health Econ. 2006;25(4):599–620. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.01.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. English V, Sommerville A. Presumed consent for transplantation: a dead issue after Alder Hey? J Med Ethics. 2003;29:147–152. doi: 10.1136/jme.29.3.147. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources