UK Organ Donations - Changing From Opt In To Opt Out?
The current "opt in" system of organ donations -- where individuals are asked to register their willingness to be a donor after their death -- has been the subject of debate for many years.
The current way is called the "altruistic approach.
" Altruistic in the sense that you donate for free without any incentive.
The opt out is a mechanism that functions with "presumed consent," assuming someone is willing to donate unless they register their objection by an opt out by recording the unwillingness to give organs in writing.
A poll showed that50% of the public favored the current system, 28% supported a shift to presumed consent and 22% expressed no preference.
(www.
uktransplant.
org.
uk/ukt/newsroom/ statements_and_stances/statements/opt_in_or_out.
jsp).
The question is what should be the norm? Like in other areas, all though of a complete different calibre (e-mailings) Opt out have been the norm, but is replaced by a commonly accepted opt-in norm because a the problems with an opt out (in the case of e-mailing).
The thing is that society changes and that by new developments you are to reconsider existing laws.
In this case the opt-in mechanism.
Yet this is very delicate.
On one side, healthcare is a public domain and the demand for organs is a macro-economic function; with an increase in the level of science and with ever increasing population the demand for organs will rise rapidly.
But somewhere in this macro environment is the singular case of a patient in need and at the other side the human tragedy behind death.
In such a particular case you cannot speeds things up by sending out a law stating that "from now on everybody will automatically consents with unless.
" What you do want to achieve is a change in society.
It appears that Sweden uses the opt out, but has a lower level of donors, and Spain has also the opt out but does have a higher level.
Changing the law will not necessarily be the one effort to undertake.
A change is not always achieved by changing a construction (in this case a law) and than see what happens.
The best change is when people are motivated (perhaps with the help of incentives) to do something.
If you want more donors you have to find out first why the level of donors is low and than start a campaign.
When the public opinion changes in favor of donation the law can also change.
If you change the laws first you will probably increase the resistant to act the desired way.
© 2006 Hans Bool
The current way is called the "altruistic approach.
" Altruistic in the sense that you donate for free without any incentive.
The opt out is a mechanism that functions with "presumed consent," assuming someone is willing to donate unless they register their objection by an opt out by recording the unwillingness to give organs in writing.
A poll showed that50% of the public favored the current system, 28% supported a shift to presumed consent and 22% expressed no preference.
(www.
uktransplant.
org.
uk/ukt/newsroom/ statements_and_stances/statements/opt_in_or_out.
jsp).
The question is what should be the norm? Like in other areas, all though of a complete different calibre (e-mailings) Opt out have been the norm, but is replaced by a commonly accepted opt-in norm because a the problems with an opt out (in the case of e-mailing).
The thing is that society changes and that by new developments you are to reconsider existing laws.
In this case the opt-in mechanism.
Yet this is very delicate.
On one side, healthcare is a public domain and the demand for organs is a macro-economic function; with an increase in the level of science and with ever increasing population the demand for organs will rise rapidly.
But somewhere in this macro environment is the singular case of a patient in need and at the other side the human tragedy behind death.
In such a particular case you cannot speeds things up by sending out a law stating that "from now on everybody will automatically consents with unless.
" What you do want to achieve is a change in society.
It appears that Sweden uses the opt out, but has a lower level of donors, and Spain has also the opt out but does have a higher level.
Changing the law will not necessarily be the one effort to undertake.
A change is not always achieved by changing a construction (in this case a law) and than see what happens.
The best change is when people are motivated (perhaps with the help of incentives) to do something.
If you want more donors you have to find out first why the level of donors is low and than start a campaign.
When the public opinion changes in favor of donation the law can also change.
If you change the laws first you will probably increase the resistant to act the desired way.
© 2006 Hans Bool
Source...