Merits of a presumed consent approach to organ donation
Greg Walsh,
Lawyer
Australia has one of the lowest organ donation rates in the
developed world. In 2007, there were only 198 individuals whose
organs could be transplanted to other people, yet there were over
1700 individuals who were on the organ transplant waiting list.
Even taking into account that the organs taken from one individual
can be used to help many others, there is still a drastic shortfall
in the number of organs needed, which is resulting in many
Australians needlessly suffering and dying each year.
Unfortunately, the problem of lack of availability of organs for
donation is predicted to become worse in the future due to our
ageing population, and the increased incidence of diseases like
obesity and diabetes.
Current arrangements
The current procedure for organ donation in Australia is an 'opt
in' system where the donor can register their consent (or
objection) to donating their organs on the Australian Organ Donor
Register. Organs are only suitable for donation if the donor dies
in the intensive care unit of a hospital and on a ventilator that
keeps their organs functioning. If a person dies under these
conditions then their organs will only be removed after two doctors
have confirmed that the donor is brain dead, the organ register has
been checked to determine whether the deceased registered their
consent or objection to organ donation, and the views of the family
members of the deceased have been sought to confirm that the organ
donation can proceed.
One approach to improving organ donation rates that is
periodically considered is that of adopting a system where an
individual is presumed to consent to donate their organs unless
they officially register their refusal to donate.
Increasing the
number of organs donated
The key argument in favour of adopting a system of presumed
consent for organ donations is that it will significantly increase
the rate of organ donation in Australia. Many countries throughout
the world adopt the presumed consent approach to organ donation and
some of these countries have a comparatively high rate of organ
donation. For example, Spain adopts a presumed consent approach and
has the highest rate of organ donation in the world at around 35
donors per million, which is about three times the rate of donation
in Australia.
The claim that a move to a presumed consent approach to organ
donations will actually increase the rate of organ donation has
been widely contested. For example, in 2008, the Queensland
Government established the Review of Organ and Tissue Donation
Procedures Select Committee to investigate and report on the merits
of adopting a presumed consent approach in Queensland. The
committee delivered its report in October 2008 and stated that it
"did not identify any convincing evidence that organ and tissue
donation rates would improve significantly under a system of
presumed consent". The committee also declared that there was
evidence from international experience that a move to a presumed
consent approach to organ donation could even decrease the rate of
organ donation if it was "introduced without sufficient public
support and without changes to hospital systems to support organ
and tissue donation".
Proponents of the presumed consent approach accept that it can
be difficult to prove a causal relationship between adopting a
presumed consent approach and increased donation rates. However,
these proponents argue various studies that compared different
countries have provided persuasive evidence that the countries that
have consistently implemented a presumed consent approach have a
higher rate of organ donation. Proponents also accept that there
are many different factors that account for the level of organ
donation in a state which also influence the success of any move to
introduce a presumed consent model, such as the availability of
potential donors, infrastructure for transplantation, investment in
healthcare, and public attitudes. However, supporters of a presumed
consent approach claim that the approach should be introduced in
many countries, at least on a trial basis, due to the large number
of lives that could be saved or significantly improved if the
change was successful in increasing the rate of organ donation.
Interests of the
donor and their family
The presumed consent model is also argued to be supportive of
the autonomy of individuals. Such an argument is contrary to the
claim made by many critics that a presumed consent model is
unethical, as it fails to show appropriate respect for individual
autonomy by forcing them to make a moral decision about donating
their organs. This criticism is claimed to be particularly valid in
relation to the disadvantaged in society who, for psychological,
social or financial reasons, may be unable to adequately appreciate
the implications of a presumed consent model or be unable to
express their objection to their organs being donated, with the
result that their organs may be removed without their consent.
However, proponents of the presumed consent model argue that it
is supportive of the autonomy of individuals as most Australians
support organ donation but fail to register their consent due to
reasons such as time limitations, financial constraints or apathy.
It is argued that a presumed consent model will more appropriately
allow the Commonwealth Government to fulfil the desires of the
majority of Australians who want to donate their organs, but who
are not currently supported in doing so through the 'opt in'
approach to organ donation.
Although a change to a presumed consent model might result in
some individuals donating their organs when they would have
objected, this needs to be balanced against the greater number of
individuals whose organs are not being donated when they would have
consented. Proponents argue that this conflict between the
competing claims to respect for autonomy should be resolved in
favour of the presumed consent model, considering that the model
could significantly increase the level of organ donation to the
great benefit of many Australians. Furthermore, most presumed
consent models provide the family members of the deceased with the
final decision as to whether the organ donation will proceed, which
is a further safeguard against the organ donation process being
abused especially in relation to the disadvantaged. Finally, health
professionals can assess whether the individual or their family
members are able to validly consent to the organ donation process,
and decide whether in the circumstances of each case it is
appropriate for the organs of the individual to be donated.
Drawbacks of a
presumed consent approach
Critics of presumed consent argue that the experience of other
countries that have adopted a presumed consent approach provides a
strong justification for retaining the current 'opt in' method of
organ donation. In particular, they highlight the situation of
Brazil, which introduced a presumed consent system but had to
withdraw the system because it caused many people in the country to
distrust the healthcare system, especially in relation to the
integrity of the organ collection process. Others argue that if
such a system was introduced in Australia it could create the
perception that the government is inappropriately interfering in
the lives of citizens and is claiming ownership over the bodies of
Australians.
A further criticism of the presumed consent model is the
possibility that it might undermine the altruistic status of organ
donation, changing the concept of organ donation from an expression
of humanitarian concern to being an obligation to the government to
be fulfilled. Others argue that there are alternative changes that
could be made to the system of organ donation that might be more
effective in improving the rate of organ donation in Australia
without some of the drawbacks associated with the presumed consent
approach. For example, many are critical of the current situation,
which allows family members of the deceased to refuse to allow an
organ donation operation to proceed even if the deceased had
previously registered their consent to organ donation. Other
approaches that could also be considered by future governments
include financial incentives for organ donation, giving patients
who are registered as organ donors priority in accessing available
organs, and allowing various procedures aimed at preserving organ
quality to be carried out on terminally ill patients who have
consented to donating their organs while the patient is still
alive.
Next move for Australia?
The current rate of organ donation in Australia is unacceptably
low and governments throughout Australia are appropriately focusing
significant resources in an attempt to meet the increasing demand
for organ transplantation. One possible approach to addressing the
shortage of organs available for transplantation is to move to a
system of presumed consent in relation to organ donation, but there
are still many who would resist such a change. Despite these valid
concerns, there is merit in the introduction of a presumed consent
model, at least on a trial basis, because if it were successful in
increasing the rate of organ donation then there would be a
significant reduction in the number of Australians who needlessly
suffer and die each year from the current lack of supply of
suitable organs.