Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Volume: 22 Issue: 10 October 2024 - Supplement - 5

FULL TEXT

ARTICLE
Ethics of Organ Donation and Transplantation: Toward Self-Sufficiency
Ehtuish F. A. Ehtuish

Organ donation, intersecting medical necessity and ethical responsibility, calls for policies respecting individual autonomy while aiming for societal self-sufficiency. This article evaluates various government policies, emphasizing the ethical use of nudges in decision-making and the potential impact on autonomy. We argue that, while some policies might be coercive, others may inadvertently disrespect autonomy through subtle influences on decision-making. To reach self sufficiency in organ donation and transplantation and to keep adherent to medical ethics, especially informed consent, and gift of life campaigns, governments must determine the legal procedures by which their residents are registered, or can register, as organ donors. Provided that governments recognize that people have a right to determine what happens to their organs after they die, there are 4 feasible options to choose from: opt-in, opt-out, mandated active choice, and voluntary active choice. This article investigated the ethics of these policies’ use of nudges and pokes to affect organ donor registration ways, rules, and rates. We argue that the use of nudges in this context is morally problematic. It is disrespectful of people’s autonomy to take advantage of their cognitive biases since doing so involves bypassing, not engaging, their rational capacities. We conclude that, although mandated active choice policies are not problem free, they are coercive; after all, voluntary active choice, opt-in, and opt-out policies are potentially less respectful of people’s autonomy since their use of nudges could significantly affect people’s decision making.


Key words : Autonomy, Ethical polices, Gift of life, Organ donation, Opt-in, Opt-out, Self-sufficiency

Ethical Horizon of Organ Donation and Transplantation

Organ donation and transplantation stand at the intersection of medical urgency and ethical imperatives, encapsulating a profound dilemma in modern health care.1-4 The persistent scarcity of available organs, contrasting sharply with escalating demand, poses an unprecedented challenge to global health care systems.5-8 This conundrum extends far beyond mere logistical hurdles, delving into the depths of ethical considerations that touch the very essence of human existence and societal values.9,10 The principles of autonomy, consent, and the altruistic notion of the “gift of life” are foundational pillars that guide the ethical discourse surrounding organ donation. These principles are not merely abstract concepts but are integral to understanding the complex interplay between individual rights and collective health needs.11-14

In response to the pressing need for a sustainable increase in organ donations, governments worldwide have explored and implemented a variety of policies aimed at enhancing donor registration rates. Among these strategies, the utilization of behavioral economics through the application of nudges has emerged as a particularly noteworthy approach. Nudges, designed to subtly influence individual decision-making without restricting freedom of choice, have shown potential in promoting organ donor registrations. However, their application within this sensitive domain raises profound ethical questions, particularly concerning their impact on individual autonomy and the integrity of consent.14-18

The ethical landscape of organ donation is further complicated by the dynamic between societal benefit and individual rights. The acute need for organs has prompted a reassessment of traditional ethical frameworks, challenging societies to reconcile the urgency of saving lives with the imperative to respect individual autonomy and voluntary decision-making. This tension underscores the complexity of crafting policies that are both ethically sound and effective in addressing organ scarcity.19-22

Moreover, the concept of the gift of life imbues organ donation with a unique moral dimension, elevating it from a mere medical procedure to an act of profound human solidarity. This notion, although universally laudable, varies in interpretation across different cultures and ethical systems, adding another layer of complexity to the ethical deliberation. The gift of life encapsulates the ultimate altruistic act, yet its realization is contingent on navigating a labyrinth of ethical, cultural, and psychological factors that influence individual and collective attitudes toward organ donation.23-25

As governments and societies endeavor to achieve self-sufficiency in organ donation, the ethical considerations at play demand a careful, nuanced analysis. This article seeks to explore the multifaceted ethical dimensions of organ donation policies, focusing on how these strategies intersect with core ethical principles such as autonomy and consent. By examining the ethical implications of using nudges and other policy tools, this exploration aims to shed light on the path toward an organ donation system that is not only self-sufficient but also firmly anchored in ethical integrity.26-30

Ethical Frameworks and Autonomy

At the heart of organ donation ethics lies the principles of autonomy and informed consent. Autonomy, the right of individuals to make informed decisions about their bodies, is paramount. Any policy affecting organ donation must respect this principle, ensuring that individuals’ decisions are both informed and voluntary. The ethical landscape of organ donation is further complicated by the concept of the gift of life, which adds a moral weight to the decision to donate organs, suggesting a form of altruism that transcends mere personal choice.31,32

Navigating the Crossroads of Faith and Organ Donation: A Multifaceted Ethical Inquiry

The intersection of organ donation and transplantation with ethical considerations presents a complex landscape, further enriched by the diverse perspectives of major world religions. As societies strive for self-sufficiency in organ donation, the challenge extends beyond mere logistical or medical concerns, touching deeply held beliefs and values. Below is a comprehensive analysis of the gift of life that weaves in the critical viewpoints of various religious traditions.32-34

Religious Perspectives and Organ Donation

As we delve into the ethical underpinnings of organ donation, the inclusion of religious viewpoints reveals a rich tapestry of beliefs influencing individual decisions. Major world religions offer a spectrum of stances on organ donation.

Islam not only supports but encourages organ donation as a form of altruism, although it emphasizes the necessity of consent and respects the body’s integrity after death, reflecting diverse interpretations among Islamic scholars.1,2,34-36

Christianity often views organ donation as an act of love and charity, aligning with the principle of loving one’s neighbor. Many Christian denominations support organ donation, seeing it as a way to alleviate suffering and save lives.1,2

Judaism considers saving a life as one of the highest forms of duty; thus, organ donation is seen as a commendable act. However, there is emphasis on ensuring respect for the deceased and the timely burial of the body.1,2

Hinduism and Buddhism do not prohibit organ donation, viewing it as an act that can accrue good karma or merit. The decision is left to individual choice, with a focus on the intentions behind the act.1,2,37

Sikhism also supports organ donation, considering it an act of generosity and a means to save human lives, in line with its principles of selfless service and compassion.

These religious perspectives enrich the dialogue on organ donation ethics,38 highlighting the importance of respecting individual beliefs in policy formulation.

Government Policies and the Influence of Religious Beliefs

In addressing the challenge of organ scarcity, government policies, such as opt-in and opt-out systems and mandated and voluntary active choice, have been implemented globally. The effectiveness of these policies can be greatly influenced by the religious beliefs of the population. For instance, an opt-out system might be more readily accepted in cultures where altruism is deeply ingrained into religious practice, whereas, in societies with a strong emphasis on bodily integrity after death, such policies might face resistance.39-41

Government Policies and Ethical Dilemmas

To address organ scarcity, governments worldwide have adopted different legal frameworks for organ donor registration, which include opt-in, opt-out, mandated choice, and voluntary active choice. Each of these policies presents unique ethical challenges, particularly concerning how they respect or undermine autonomy.42,43

Opt-in systems require individuals to actively register their consent to donate their organs after death. While respecting autonomy, this system often results in lower donation rates due to inertia and lack of engagement.44-46

Opt-out systems presume consent for donation unless individuals explicitly register their refusal. This approach can increase donation rates but raises ethical concerns about presumed consent and the potential for overriding explicit individual wishes.47

Mandated choice policies require individuals to make a decision about organ donation, often at the time of obtaining or renewing a driver’s license. This approach increases engagement but can be seen as coercive, forcing a decision without the depth of consideration that true autonomy requires.

Voluntary active choice models encourage but do not require individuals to make a decision regarding organ donation. This system respects autonomy but relies heavily on nudges and other strategies to prompt decision-making, which can subtly influence decisions in ways that may not fully align with individual reflective choices.1,48

The Ethical Use of Nudges in Organ Donation

Nudges, “subtle design elements in choice architecture that alter people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives,” are increasingly used in policy-making. However, their application in organ donation is ethically contentious. Nudges exploit cognitive biases, such as default effects or loss aversion, potentially bypassing rational decision-making processes. This factor raises ethical concerns about respect for autonomy, as nudges may lead individuals to make choices that do not fully reflect their values or intentions.14-16

Toward Ethical Self-Sufficiency in Organ Donation

Achieving self-sufficiency in organ donation and transplantation requires policies that not only increase donation rates but also respect the mosaic of religious beliefs and ethical principles. Adhering to ethical standards necessitates a nuanced approach.1 Policies must balance the need to increase organ donation rates with the imperative to respect individual autonomy and informed consent. This delicate balance calls for transparent communication, comprehensive public education, and inclusive engagement strategies that empower individuals to make informed choices in alignment with their beliefs and values.2,4,10

Conclusions

The ethical landscape of organ donation and transplantation is complex, with no one-size-fits-all solution. While the quest for self-sufficiency in organ donation is commendable, it must not come at the cost of individual autonomy or ethical principles. Policies must be carefully designed to respect autonomy, informed consent, and the altruistic spirit of the gift of life. As we move forward, it is crucial to engage in ongoing ethical reflection, ensuring that organ donation policies are both effective and ethically sound, ultimately fostering a culture of informed and voluntary organ donation.


References:

  1. Ehtuish E. Ethical controversies in organ transplantation: In: Ortiz J, Andre J, eds. Understanding the Complexities of Kidney Transplantation. IntechOpen; 2011. doi:10.5772/17616
    CrossRef - PubMed
  2. Ehtuish EF, Abouna GM, Shebani AH, Abdulmola TS, Shawesh TZ. Kidney transplantation in Libya: a North African and Middle Eastern perspective. Exp Clin Transplant. 2006;4(1):425-428.
    CrossRef - PubMed
  3. World Health Organization. WHO guiding principles on human cell, tissue and organ transplantation. Transplantation. 2010;90(3):229-233. doi:10.1097/TP.0b013e3181ec29f0
    CrossRef - PubMed
  4. Sells RA. What is transplantation law and whom does it serve? Transplant Proc. 2003;35(3):1191-1194. doi:10.1016/s0041-1345(03)00126-x
    CrossRef - PubMed
  5. Alashek W, Ehtuish E, Elhabashi A, Emberish W, Mishra A. Reasons for unwillingness of Libyans to donate organs after death. Libyan J Med. 2009;4(3):110-113. doi:10.4176/090405
    CrossRef - PubMed
  6. Danovitch GM, Leichtman AB. Kidney vending: the “Trojan horse” of organ transplantation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;1(6):1133-1135. doi:10.2215/CJN.03030906
    CrossRef - PubMed
  7. Delmonico FL. The development of the Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23(11):3381-3382. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfn552
    CrossRef - PubMed
  8. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 7th ed. Oxford University Press; 2012.
    CrossRef - PubMed
  9. Caplan A. Bioethics of organ transplantation. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2014;4(3). doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a015685
    CrossRef - PubMed
  10. Working Group on Incentives for Living Donation, Matas AJ, Satel S, et al. Incentives for organ donation: proposed standards for an internationally acceptable system. Am J Transplant. 2012;12(2):306-312. doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03881.x
    CrossRef - PubMed
  11. Wilkinson TM. Ethics and the Acquisition of Organs. Oxford University Press; 2011.
    CrossRef PubMed:
  12. Savulescu J. The ethics of coercion and authority in medicine. Public Health Ethics. 2004;1(3).
    CrossRef - PubMed
  13. Dworkin G. The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge Studies in Philosophy. Cambridge University Press; 1988.
    CrossRef - PubMed
  14. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Penguin Books; 2009.
    CrossRef - PubMed
  15. Whyte KP, Selinger E, Caplan AL, Sadowski J. Nudge, nudge or shove, shove-the right way for nudges to increase the supply of donated cadaver organs. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12(2):32-39. doi:10.1080/15265161.2011.634484
    CrossRef - PubMed
  16. Truog RD. The ethics of organ donation by living donors. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(5):444-446. doi:10.1056/NEJMp058155
    CrossRef - PubMed
  17. Harris J. Wonderwoman and Superman: The Ethics of Human Biotechnology. Oxford; 1992.
    CrossRef - PubMed
  18. World Health Assembly. Human organ and tissue transplantation. http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf/files/WHA63/A63_R22-en.pdf
    CrossRef - PubMed
  19. Danovitch GM, Chapman J, Capron AM, et al. Organ trafficking and transplant tourism: the role of global professional ethical standards-the 2008 Declaration of Istanbul. Transplantation. 2013;95(11):1306-1312. doi:10.1097/TP.0b013e318295ee7d
    CrossRef - PubMed
  20. Rizvi SA, Naqvi SA, Zafar MN, et al. A renal transplantation model for developing countries. Am J Transplant. 2011;11(11):2302-2307. doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03712.x
    CrossRef - PubMed
  21. Lacetera N, Macis M, Stith SS. Removing financial barriers to organ and bone marrow donation: the effect of leave and tax legislation in the U.S. J Health Econ. 2014;33:43-56. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.10.006
    CrossRef - PubMed
  22. Nejatisafa AA, Mortaz-Hedjri S, Malakoutian T, et al. Quality of life and life events of living unrelated kidney donors in Iran: a multicenter study. Transplantation. 2008;86(7):937-940. doi:10.1097/TP.0b013e318186d945
    CrossRef - PubMed
  23. Rosenblum AM, Horvat LD, Siminoff LA, Prakash V, Beitel J, Garg AX. The authority of next-of-kin in explicit and presumed consent systems for deceased organ donation: an analysis of 54 nations. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27(6):2533-2546. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfr619
    CrossRef - PubMed
  24. Matesanz R. [Transplants, money, and other miserable things]. Nefrologia. 2001;21(5):435-436.
    CrossRef PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11795010/
  25. Martinez JM, Lopez JS, Martin A, Martin MJ, Scandroglio B, Martin JM. Organ donation and family decision-making within the Spanish donation system. Soc Sci Med. 2001;53(4):405-421. doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00345-2
    CrossRef - PubMed
  26. Sque M, Long T, Payne S. Organ donation: key factors influencing families' decision-making. Transplant Proc. 2005;37(2):543-546. doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2004.11.038
    CrossRef - PubMed
  27. Verheijde JL, Rady MY, McGregor JL, Friederich-Murray C. Enforcement of presumed-consent policy and willingness to donate organs as identified in the European Union Survey: the role of legislation in reinforcing ideology in pluralistic societies. Health Policy. 2009;90(1):26-31. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.08.008
    CrossRef - PubMed
  28. Potts M, Verheijde JL, Rady MY, Evans DW. Normative consent and presumed consent for organ donation: a critique. J Med Ethics. 2010;36(8):498-499. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.036624
    CrossRef - PubMed
  29. Bard JS. Lack of political will and public trust dooms presumed consent. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12(2):44-46. doi:10.1080/15265161.2011.634492
    CrossRef - PubMed
  30. Gilligan C, Sanson-Fisher RW, Turon H. The organ donation conundrum. Prog Transplant. 2012;22(3):312-316. doi:10.7182/pit2012216
    CrossRef - PubMed
  31. Campbell D, Davison N. Illegal kidney trade booms as new organ is ‘sold every hour’. The Guardian. May 29, 2012.
    CrossRef - PubMed
  32. Goyal M, Mehta RL, Schneiderman LJ, Sehgal AR. Economic and health consequences of selling a kidney in India. JAMA. 2002;288(13):1589-1593. doi:10.1001/jama.288.13.1589
    CrossRef - PubMed
  33. Murphy SV, Atala A. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32(8):773-785. doi:10.1038/nbt.2958
    CrossRef - PubMed
  34. Bertolini M, Rossoni M, Colombo G. Operative workflow from CT to 3D printing of the heart: opportunities and challenges. Bioengineering (Basel). 2021;8(10). doi:10.3390/bioengineering8100130
    CrossRef - PubMed
  35. Benwood C, Chrenek J, Kirsch RL, et al. Natural biomaterials and their use as bioinks for printing tissues. Bioengineering (Basel). 2021;8(2). doi:10.3390/bioengineering8020027
    CrossRef - PubMed
  36. Jarl J, Desatnik P, Peetz Hansson U, Prutz KG, Gerdtham UG. Do kidney transplantations save money? A study using a before-after design and multiple register-based data from Sweden. Clin Kidney J. 2018;11(2):283-288. doi:10.1093/ckj/sfx088
    CrossRef - PubMed
  37. Schaeffner ES, Mehta J, Winkelmayer WC. Educational level as a determinant of access to and outcomes after kidney transplantation in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2008;51(5):811-818. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.01.019
    CrossRef - PubMed
  38. Oniscu GC, Schalkwijk AA, Johnson RJ, Brown H, Forsythe JL. Equity of access to renal transplant waiting list and renal transplantation in Scotland: cohort study. BMJ. 2003;327(7426):1261. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7426.1261
    CrossRef - PubMed
  39. Cohen IG. Transplant tourism: the ethics and regulation of international markets for organs. J Law Med Ethics. 2013;41(1):269-285. doi:10.1111/jlme.12018
    CrossRef - PubMed
  40. Cohen IG. The price of everything, the value of nothing: reframing the commodification debate. Harvard Law Rev. 2003;117(689).
    CrossRef - PubMed
  41. Agarwal SK, Srivastava RK, Gupta S, Tripathi S. Evolution of the Transplantation of Human Organ Act and law in India. Transplantation. 2012;94(2):110-113. doi:10.1097/TP.0b013e31825ace15
    CrossRef - PubMed
  42. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Financial incentives for organ donation. A report of the OPTN/UNOS Ethics Committee Payment Subcommittee. https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/professionals/by-topic/ethical-considerations/financial-incentives-for-organ-donation/
    CrossRef - PubMed
  43. Chkhotua A. Incentives for organ donation: pros and cons. Transplant Proc. 2012;44(6):1793-1794. doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2012.05.038
    CrossRef - PubMed
  44. Rithalia A, McDaid C, Suekarran S, Myers L, Sowden A. Impact of presumed consent for organ donation on donation rates: a systematic review. BMJ. 2009;338:a3162. doi:10.1136/bmj.a3162
    CrossRef - PubMed
  45. 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
    CrossRef - PubMed
  46. Rodriguez-Arias D, Wright L, Paredes D. Success factors and ethical challenges of the Spanish Model of organ donation. Lancet. 2010;376(9746):1109-1112. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61342-6
    CrossRef - PubMed
  47. Saunders B. Normative consent and opt-out organ donation. J Med Ethics. 2010;36(2):84-87. doi:10.1136/jme.2009.03f45-4Matesanz R. Spain: a leader in harvesting hearts for transplantation. Circulation. 2007;115(11):f45-46.
    CrossRef - PubMed
  48. Padilla B, Bayog D, Uy NL, et al. The Philippines is not the site for incentivized organ donation. Am J Transplant. 2012;12(7):1956. doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04118.x
    CrossRef - PubMed

Volume : 22
Issue : 10
Pages : 30 - 34
DOI : 10.6002/ect.pedsymp2024.O1

PDF VIEW [130] KB.
FULL PDF VIEW

President Libyan National General Authority for Organ, Tissue, and Cell Transplantation, City, Country Tripoli Libya
Acknowledgements: The author has not received any funding or grants in support of the presented research or for the preparation of this work and has no declarations of potential conflicts of interest.
Corresponding author: Ehtuish F. A. Ehtuish, Libyan National General Authority for Organ tissue and cell transplantation, Tripoli, Libya 22622y
E-mail:Ehtuish@gmail.com (web: https://www.ehtuish.com/ar)