Advertisement

The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 29–38 | Cite as

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

  • Fırat BilgelEmail author
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Deceased organ donation Legislative defaults Role of institutions Role of the family Fixed effects vector decomposition 

JEL Classification

I18 K32 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Annas, G.J.: The Paradoxes of Organ Transplantation. Am. J. Public Health 78, 621–622 (1988)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bryne, M.M., Thompson, P.: A positive analysis of financial incentives for cadaveric organ donation. J. Health Econ 20, 69–83 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    CIA. The World Fact Book, URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook (2003). Accessed 18 February 2009
  7. 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. 8.
    English, V.: Is presumed consent the answer to organ shortages? Yes. Br. Med. J. 334, 1088 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 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)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freedom House. Freedom in the World Comparative Rankings. URL: http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/FIWAllScores.xls (2008). Accessed 18 February 2009
  11. 11.
    Gevers, S., Janssen, A., Friele, R.: Consent Systems for Post Mortem Organ Donation in Europe. Eur. J. Health Law 11, 175–186 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. 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. 14.
    Grunfeld, G.B.: Ethical Issues in Organ Transplantation in Israel. Eubios J. Asian and Int. Bioeth. 6, 169 (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Healy, K.: The Political Economy of Presumed Consent. Department of Sociology, UCLA, Theory and Research in Comparative Social Analysis, Paper no.31 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jensen, T.R.: Organ Procurement: Various Legal Systems and their Effectiveness. Houst. J. Int. Law 22, 555–584 (2000)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson, E.J., Goldstein, D.G.: Do defaults save lives? Science 302, 1338–1339 (2003)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matesanz, R.: Cadaveric Organ Donation: Comparison of legislation in various countries of Europe. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 13, 1632–1635 (1998)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    May, T., Ausilio, M.P., DeVita, M.A.: Patients, Families and Organ Donation: Who Should Decide? The Milbank Q. 78, 323–336 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ngahooro, J., Gillett, G.: Over my dead body: the ethics of organ donation in New Zealand. The New Zealand Med. J. 117 (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), http://www.optn.org. Accessed on 17 October 2009
  24. 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. 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. 26.
    Tabarrok, A.: How to get real about organs. Econ J. Watch 1, 11–18 (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tietzel, M.: In Praise of the Commons: Another Case Study. Eur. J. Law and Econ. 12, 159–171 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Transplant Procurement Management (TPM) International Registry of Donation and Transplantation, http://www.tpm.org/ (2008). Accessed 12 December 2008
  29. 29.
    World Bank, Health, Nutrition, and Population statistics database, http://devdata.worldbank.org/hnpstats/ (2008). Accessed 2 February 2009
  30. 30.
    World Health Organization, statistical information system (2008), http://www.who.int/whosis/en/index.html. Accessed 2 February 2009
  31. 31.
    World Health Organization, WHO mortality database (2008), http://www.who.int/healthinfo/morttables/en/index.html. Accessed 2 February 2009

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Rotterdam Institute of Law and EconomicsErasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations