Abstract
Objectives To increase post-mortem organ donation rates, several countries are adopting an opt-out (presumed consent) policy, meaning that individuals are deemed donors unless they expressly refused so. However, studies on the relative impact of opt-in or opt-out on deceased organ donation rates are inconclusive. Although opt-out countries tend to have higher donation rates, there is no conclusive evidence that this is caused by the policy itself. The main objective of this study is to better assess the impact of consent policies when considering the role of the family in decision-making.
Design By systematically combining the three components of the decision-making process —the default rule, the deceased’s preferences, and the family’s preferences,— we identify all situations that affect the retrieval outcome under opt-in and opt-out policies. Then, by gathering empirical data from a wide array of countries, we estimate the relative frequency of these situations.
Main outcome measures We measure the relative impact that opt-in and opt-out policies have per se on post-mortem organ retrieval.
Results Our analysis shows that opt-in and opt-out have strictly identical outcomes in eight out of nine situations. These policies only differ when neither the deceased nor the family have expressed a preference and defaults therefore apply. The actual impact of consent policies is typically circumscribed to a range of 0% to 5% of all opportunities for organ retrieval.
Conclusions This study may warn contemporary organ retrieval policy makers that, by emphasizing the need to introduce presumed consent, they might be overestimating the influence of policy defaults and underestimating the power granted to families in expressing their preferences and making decisions about organ donation. Governments should reassess the opportunity and effectiveness of adopting opt-out policies for organ retrieval.
What is already known on this topic
What is already known on this topic
Studies on the relative impact of opt-in and opt-out on deceased organ donation rates are inconclusive.
There is a correlation between presumed consent and higher rates of organ retrieval, but no evidence of a causal relationship.
Most studies overlook the role of the family in decision-making.
What this study adds
What this study adds
When the role of the family is taken into account, opt-in and opt-out policies have identical outcomes in eight out of nine situations.
The situation where opt-in and opt-out actually differ from each other typically occurs in less than 5% of post-mortem organ retrieval opportunities.
Moving from opt-in to opt-out can only marginally increase the organ supply.
Strengths and limitations of this study
Strengths and limitations of this study
The main strength of this study is the combination of analytical and empirical methods.
This is the first study to analyse all situations that affect the retrieval outcome under both opt-in and opt-out policies when considering the role of the family in decision making.
Data analysed in this study is the best empirical evidence available to date.
The main limitation of our study is the heterogeneity of sources, sample sizes and time periods for the data collected, especially for the additional supporting evidence.
This study only considers the direct effects of opt-out policies on organ retrieval rates, but not its indirect effects, such as organ preservation measures and psychological effects.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Spanish government, grant numbers [FJCI-2017-34286] and [MINECO FFI2017-88913-P].
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All datasets used in this study were publicly available prior to the initiation of the study. No IRB or ethics committee approval was required.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Data from Denmark in Table 4 (page 10) was wrong: the total number of potential donors considered is 235 (not 257). This error affected the percentages. This error has been corrected in the supplementary file too.
Data Availability
All data referred to in the manuscript were openly available prior to the initiation of the study. Data sources used for this study are cited in the manuscript or in the supplementary file.
