IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v19y2024i3p353-369_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why did England change its law on deceased organ donation in 2019? The dynamic interplay between evidence and values

Author

Listed:
  • Williams, Lorraine
  • Bostock, Jennifer
  • Noyes, Jane
  • McLaughlin, Leah
  • O'Neill, Stephen
  • Al-Haboubi, Mustafa
  • Boadu, Paul
  • Mays, Nicholas

Abstract

In the three years since the law on adult deceased organ donation consent in England changed to include an opt-out system, there has been no discernible change to donation rates. The lack of a positive impact on donation rates was predicted by many of those who took part in debates before and during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. This invites the question as to why England moved to an opt-out system for organ donation despite equivocal evidence of likely benefit and opposition from expert health professional organisations. To address this question qualitative analyses of Parliamentary debates on organ donation was undertaken. This revealed a shift from a dominant position, which gave primacy to the evidence of likely effects, towards a more normative position where a deemed consent option was viewed as the ‘correct thing to do’ and the limited and conflicting evidence viewed in a positive light. By 2017, following Wales's move to an opt-out system, together with continued lobbying for similar changes for England by professional and patient groups, alongside sustained public popularity for organ donation, the balance of opinion had shifted towards a system where deemed consent would become the default position for most English adults

Suggested Citation

  • Williams, Lorraine & Bostock, Jennifer & Noyes, Jane & McLaughlin, Leah & O'Neill, Stephen & Al-Haboubi, Mustafa & Boadu, Paul & Mays, Nicholas, 2024. "Why did England change its law on deceased organ donation in 2019? The dynamic interplay between evidence and values," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 353-369, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:19:y:2024:i:3:p:353-369_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133124000112/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:19:y:2024:i:3:p:353-369_6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/hep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.