Policy makers should understand people’s attitudes towards opt-out nudges to smoothly promote and implement the policies. Our research compares people’s perceptions of opt-in and three improved versions of opt-out (transparency, emphasis on the low-cost opt-out option, education) in pro-social and pro-self policy domains, e.g., organ donation (N=610), carbon emission offset (N=613), and retirement saving (N=602). We found that people acknowledged more practical and societal benefits of opt-out than opt-in in organ donation and retirement saving but less so in carbon emission offset. Improved opt-out policies failed to address ethical concerns and most emotional discomfort concerns in organ donation whereas opt-out transparency and emphasis on low-cost opt-out were more successful than education at addressing concerns in retirement saving and carbon emission offset. Nonetheless, transparency and education may raise consciousness of policies’ aims. The results suggest that 1) acceptability of opt-out approaches may be more difficult to enhance in some domains than others; 2) policy makers should ensure the public understands that opt-out is a convenient choice and may consider combining all forms of improvement to increase people’s acceptance of opt-out nudges.

Organ shortage is a major survival issue for millions of people worldwide. Globally 1.2 million people die each year from kidney failure. In this paper, we critically examine and find lacking extant proposals for increasing organ supply, such as opting in and opt out for deceased donor organs, and parochial altruism and paired kidney exchange for live organs. We defend two ethical solutions to the problem of organ shortage. One is to make deceased donor organs automatically available for transplant without requiring consent from the donor or their relatives. The other is for society to buy nonvital organs in a strictly regulated market and provide them to people in need for free.

Some people oppose abortion on the grounds that fetuses have full moral status and thus a right to not be killed. We argue that special obligations that hold between mother and fetus also hold between parents and their children. We argue that if these special obligations necessitate the sacrifice of bodily autonomy in the case of abortion, then they also necessitate the sacrifice of bodily autonomy in the case of organ donation. If we accept the argument that it is obligatory to override a woman’s bodily autonomy for the sake of an unborn child’s survival, we must continue to override the bodily autonomy of parents to ensure the survival of their living children, until the parent no longer has a special obligation to their child to the same degree as their special obligation to the fetus. And if the life of a child is truly more important than the bodily autonomy of its parents, as must be the case to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, this should remain true until such a time that their children are no longer considered their responsibility. Thus, parity of reasoning suggests that policies compelling the gestation of a fetus should be accompanied by policies compelling organ donation.

The growing unmet demand for suitable organ donors increases each year. Despite relative contraindications for thoracic organ donation after previous cardiac surgery, experienced programmes and surgeons can successfully utilise the lungs from select donors who have undergone prior cardiac surgery. This is the first reported case of double lung en bloc procurement from a donor who had a previous arterial switch operation as an infant.

Controlled donation after circulatory determination of death (cDCDD) is an important strategy for increasing the pool of eligible organ donors.

The primary purpose of this statement is to improve neuroprognostication after devastating brain injury (DBI), with a secondary benefit of potential organ and tissue donation.

Introduction: There is a significant gap between the number of organ donors and people awaiting an organ transplant; therefore it is essential that all potential donors are identified. Given the nature of Emergency Medicine it is a potential source of organ donors. The purpose of this study is to determine what percent of successful donors come from the Emergency Department (ED) and whether there are any missed potential donors. Methods: Electronic searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were performed July 7, 2017 using PRISMA guidelines. Primary literature in human adults were included if they described identification of patients in the ED who went on to become successful solid organ donors, or described missed potential donors in the ED. Data on the total population of actual or missed donors was required to allow calculation of a percentage. Studies describing non-solid organ donation, consent, ethics, survey of attitudes, teaching curricula, procurement techniques, donation outside the ED, and recipient factors were excluded. 2 authors independently screened articles for inclusion and discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Quality was assessed using STROBE for observational studies. Heterogeneity of patient populations precluded pooling of the data to conduct a meta-analysis. Results: 1058 articles were identified, 17 duplicates were removed, 800 articles were excluded based on title and abstract, and 217 full text articles were excluded, yielding 24 articles for the systematic review. For neurologic determination of death (NDD), ED patients comprised 4 44% of successful donors. ED death reviews revealed 0 84% of patients dying in the ED are missed as potential donors and hospital-wide death reviews revealed 13 80.9% of missed donors die in the ED. For donation after cardiac death (DCD), 4 20% of successful donors came from the ED and studies investigating potential donors suggest 2 36% of patients dying the in the ED could be potential DCD donors. The most common population of successful DCD organ donors was in traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest (TCPA), with 3.6 8.9% of TCPA patients presenting to the ED becoming successful donors. Conclusion: Patients dying in the Emergency Department are a significant source of both successful organ donors and missed potential donors. Emergency physicians should be familiar with their local organ donation protocol to ensure potential organ donors are not missed.

Introduction: Screening for organ and tissue donation is an essential skill for emergency physicians. In 2015, 4564 individuals were on a waiting list for organ transplant and 242 died while waiting. As Canadas donation rates are less than half that of other comparable countries, it is crucial to ensure we are identifying all potential donors. Patients deceased from poisoning are a source that may not be considered for referral as often as those who die from other causes. This study aims to identify if patients dying from poisoning represent an under-referred group and determine what physician characteristics influence referral decisions. Methods: In this cross-sectional unidirectional survey study, physician members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians were invited to participate. Participants were presented with 20 organ donation scenarios that included poisoned and non-poisoned deaths, as well as one ideal scenario for organ or tissue donation used for comparison. Participants were unaware of the objective to explore donation in the context of poisoning deaths. Following the organ donation scenarios, a range of follow-up questions and demographics were included to explore factors influencing the decision to refer or not refer for organ or tissue donation. Results were reported descriptively and associations between physician characteristics and decisions to refer were assessed using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results: 208/2058 (10.1%) physicians participated. 25% did not refer in scenarios involving a drug overdose (n=71). Specific poisonings commonly triggering the decision to not refer included palliative care medications (n=34, 18%), acetaminophen (n=42, 22%), chemical exposure (n=48, 27%) and organophosphates (n=87, 48%). Factors associated with an increased likelihood to refer potential donors following overdose included previous organ and tissue donation training (OR=2.6), having referred in the past (OR=4.3), available donation support (OR=3.9), greater than 10 years of service (OR=2.1), large urban center (OR=3.8), holding emergency medicine certification (OR=3.6), male gender (OR=2.2, CI), and having indicated a desire to be a donor on government identification (OR=5.8). Conclusion: Scenarios involving drug overdoses were associated with under-referral for organ and tissue donation. As poisoning is not a contraindication for referral, this represents a potential source of donors. By examining characteristics that put clinicians at risk for under-referral of organ or tissue donors, becoming aware of potential biases, improving transplant knowledge bases, and implementing support and training programs for the organ and tissue donation processes, we have the opportunity to improve these rates and reduce morbidity and mortality for Canadians requiring organ or tissue donation.

Decompressive craniectomy (DC) after devastating brain injury (DBI) may influence the manner in which patients die, having implications for end-of-life care and organ donation. We performed a retrospective review of deaths following a non-traumatic DBI between 2008 and 2012. 160 patients were reviewed; 26 were treated with DC and 134 received standard care. There was no relationship between DC and mechanism of death, (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.44-3.17). Prospective studies are required to confirm these preliminary finding. DC studies should report the mechanism of death.

We report on two areas in which UK law and ethics seem out of step with each other. 2013 saw the passing of the Human Transplantation (Wales) Bill, which will introduce an opt-out system of organ donation in Wales from 2015. In the first section, we discuss the convoluted evolution of the Bill and some potential problems that we consider may prevent it from achieving its intended goal of increasing the number of organs transplanted. The prospect of being able to enhance human cognition through cognitive-enhancing drugs (“smart drugs”) also presents a nexus of questions associated with future ambitions, hopes, and concerns as a society. How these drugs might affect the future of work and employment is beginning to generate wide public engagement in the UK and forms the focus of the second section.