GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: Potential organ donors fear inadequate treatment

domingo, 25 de febrero de 2018

Potential organ donors fear inadequate treatment

Potential organ donors fear inadequate treatment

Bioedge

Potential organ donors fear inadequate treatment

by Xavier Symons | 24 Feb 2018 |

Why are people reluctant to sign-up as organ donors?

A group of medical researchers from Emory University recently conducted a survey on this topic involving over 750 Americans. According to the researchers, the main deterrent for organ donation is a misperception that one will receive inadequate medical care if registered as an organ donor.

The results of the survey, published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons, also indicated several other factors that deterred people from donating. These include thinking there was an increased cost for the donor family when donating organs and thinking a famous person would get higher priority on the waitlist than others.

Of the respondents, 84.6 percent were willing to donate, 76.2 percent were female, 79.7 percent were Caucasian and 16.5 percent were African American. The respondents represented 37 states.

"Educating the public regarding these and other misperceptions is desperately needed," says Dr Marty T. Sellers of Emory University School of Medicine, the lead author of the paper. "With education, we believe this would convert more eligible donors into actual donors, which would shorten waiting times and allow transplantation earlier in a disease process. It would also lead to less pre- and post-transplant mortality; many living donors would be spared the risks associated with donating; and overall costs associated with transplantation would decrease."

BioEdge is a bioethical gadfly, nipping and biting at what we perceive to be bad arguments and unhealthy developments. But the recent story about a Japanese man who fathered 13 children with the help of mothers hired in Thailand suggests that almost any bioethical approach is better than none – and “none” was the position of the Bangkok judge who awarded him custody.

"The petitioner is an heir and president of a well-known company listed in a stock exchange in Japan, owner and shareholder in many companies ... which shows the petitioner has professional stability and an ample income to raise all the children. Therefore, it is ruled that all the 13 children are legal children of the petitioner … and the petitioner is their sole guardian."

Any bioethicist would immediately comment that this decision ignores many important issues. Are children just property? What about the rights of the surrogate mothers? Is it right to raise 13 boys without mothers? Is it right to raise 13 boys together like cattle? Is wealth a substitute for parenting? Is fatherhood simply a matter of sperm donation?

It sounds as though the judge merely wanted to hand the boys over to Japan. In his words (as reported) I can detect no inkling of the fact that the issue is more complicated than a commercial property transaction. It sounds as though Thailand urgently needs bioethics education.