The effect of a mandatory choice systemfor organ donation after brain death onethical legitimacy and potential efficacyin a mathematical model.
Autonomy
Mandatory choice system
Organ donation
Journal
Korean journal of transplantation
ISSN: 2671-8790
Titre abrégé: Korean J Transplant
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101775609
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Mar 2020
31 Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
26
11
2019
revised:
27
01
2020
accepted:
31
01
2020
entrez:
30
6
2022
pubmed:
31
3
2020
medline:
31
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The "mandatory choice" system is an organ donation system that forces individuals to clearly express their choice about organ donation. Although this system is widely practiced in western countries, it has not yet been implemented in many Asian countries. This study aimed to compare the possible outcomes of a mandatory choice system and the current system in Korea. A mathematical model was used to predict outcomes under each system. A structured questionnaire assuming two systems (current opt-in and mandatory choice) was developed to investigate participants' decisions on organ donation and the family's consent after brain death in each system. Participants who enrolled in this survey were 100 couples (200 people). The total number of donors decreased slightly from 102 (51.0%) in the current opt-in system to 93 (46.5%) in the mandatory choice system. The rate of achieving autonomy was increased from 62.5% (125/200) in the current system to 68.0% (136/200) in the mandatory choice system. The achievement of negative autonomy was relatively higher in the mandatory choice system (73.6% [67/91] vs. 63.2% [55/87]). The mandatory choice system can supplement the weak ethical point of the current system by increasing the achievement of autonomy.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The "mandatory choice" system is an organ donation system that forces individuals to clearly express their choice about organ donation. Although this system is widely practiced in western countries, it has not yet been implemented in many Asian countries. This study aimed to compare the possible outcomes of a mandatory choice system and the current system in Korea.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A mathematical model was used to predict outcomes under each system. A structured questionnaire assuming two systems (current opt-in and mandatory choice) was developed to investigate participants' decisions on organ donation and the family's consent after brain death in each system. Participants who enrolled in this survey were 100 couples (200 people).
Results
UNASSIGNED
The total number of donors decreased slightly from 102 (51.0%) in the current opt-in system to 93 (46.5%) in the mandatory choice system. The rate of achieving autonomy was increased from 62.5% (125/200) in the current system to 68.0% (136/200) in the mandatory choice system. The achievement of negative autonomy was relatively higher in the mandatory choice system (73.6% [67/91] vs. 63.2% [55/87]).
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
The mandatory choice system can supplement the weak ethical point of the current system by increasing the achievement of autonomy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35770263
doi: 10.4285/kjt.2020.34.1.2
pii: KJT-34-1-002
pmc: PMC9188930
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2-7Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2020 The Korean Society for Transplantation.
Références
J Med Ethics. 1995 Aug;21(4):199-204
pubmed: 7473637
J Med Ethics. 2010 Sep;36(9):534-8
pubmed: 20817820
JAMA. 2001 Jul 4;286(1):71-7
pubmed: 11434829
J Econ Perspect. 2007 Summer;21(3):25-36
pubmed: 19728420
Int J Surg. 2014 Dec;12(12):1363-8
pubmed: 25463765
BMJ. 2009 Apr 21;338:b991
pubmed: 19383730
Transplant Proc. 2005 Mar;37(2):543-6
pubmed: 15848450
Anaesthesia. 2016 Sep;71(9):1053-63
pubmed: 27440055
Arch Intern Med. 1992 Dec;152(12):2421-4
pubmed: 1456852
Ann Intern Med. 1996 Jul 1;125(1):66-9
pubmed: 8644990
Am J Bioeth. 2012;12(2):32-9
pubmed: 22304518
Asian J Surg. 2019 Jan;42(1):256-266
pubmed: 29803596
Am J Crit Care. 2010 Sep;19(5):e52-61
pubmed: 20810408
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Apr;106:137-42
pubmed: 24561775
Science. 2003 Nov 21;302(5649):1338-9
pubmed: 14631022
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2001 Fall;10(4):377-86
pubmed: 14533404
Crit Care Nurse. 2002 Dec;22(6):44-51
pubmed: 12518567
JAMA. 1995 Feb 8;273(6):504-6
pubmed: 7837372
Med Princ Pract. 2003 Jan-Mar;12(1):54-69
pubmed: 12566971
J Trauma. 2007 Apr;62(4):969-78
pubmed: 17426556