I’ve been on the road for the last week or so, gradually making my way by tramp steamer to Australia. By coincidence, I was on “ABC”:http://www.abc.net.au radio’s “Background Briefing”:http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2006/1740584.htm programme on Sunday, talking about gift and market exchange in the world of human organ and tissue procurement. There’s a “podcast of the show”:http://www.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/feeds/bbg_20060917.mp3 available if you want to listen. The topic is easy to treat in a glib or sensationalistic way, but I thought Ian Walker (who wrote and presented the show) did a really good job with it. There’s a lot of good first-hand material from organ and tissue donors, recipients and bankers, alongside stuff from me, “Virginia Postrel”:http://www.vpostrel.com/weblog/ and others.
{ 5 comments }
ogged 09.19.06 at 1:55 pm
What, no comments? I listened to it, Kieran. (Mainly to hear what your accent is like, but hey…First!)
derrida derider 09.19.06 at 10:03 pm
This is an issue I feel really strongly about.
To refuse permission for a dead body to be used to help the living in whatever way possible is just immoral, and grief is no excuse any more than it would be for any other grossly immoral action. Absent prior instructions to the contrary from the putative donor, the next-of-kin should not even be asked – it’s literally none of their business.
I haven’t read your book, Kieran, but a priori I’d be sceptical that opt-in or opt-out arrangements don’t have much effect.
Kieran Healy 09.19.06 at 10:36 pm
Hi derrida,
a priori I’d be sceptical that opt-in or opt-out arrangements don’t have much effect.
here’s a link to a paper of mine that looks at the data on this issue. It turns out that opt-out (or presumed consent) systems do not typically work as most people in English-speaking countries think.
bethany 09.20.06 at 8:29 am
A guide to finding Kieran on the podcast:
While I want to reiterate that Kieran is right. Walker did an amazing job with this story–the whole thing, I wonder if time and patience might prevent some folks from hearing my favorite part (the middle). So here are the timestamps of Kieran’s contributions for Timberites:
0-3:50: Though it’s Walker’s voice, rather than Kieran’s, I highly recommend the whole intro. It lets you know that Kieran’s work framed the story.
3:50-6:30 – K: variation in procurement rates depend on organization
36:00-36:40: K: exploitation as something conceptually different from a market.
38:30-40:15 K: “crowding out” explains why financial incentives don’t always work.
derrida derider 09.21.06 at 11:14 pm
Thanks, Kieran – a good paper. Empiric issues aside, though, aren’t two seperate ethico-legal issues being conflated here:
1) Should we presume the donor’s consent in the absence of contrary evidence?
2) Given we have made such an assumption, what business is it of the next-of-kin?
On the first one, we might ask the next of kin if they know what the donor wanted, but this is a very different thing from asking their personal permission.
It’s interesting that authorities say they respect next-of-kin wishes for the pragamtic reason that they fear an anti-transplantation campaign from outraged relatives. Given the expressed opinions in surveys of most of the population, I’d think such a campaign would be counterproductive by raising the profile of the issue. Have there been such campaigns in opt-in countries?
Comments on this entry are closed.