IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwvjh/87-2-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Widerspruchslösung – ein Weg zu höheren Organspenderaten?

Author

Listed:
  • Elisabeth Eberling

Abstract

According to the German Foundation for Organ Transplantation, on average, three people die each day in Germany while waiting for an organ donation. This article discusses the effectiveness of a nudge to the default setting “organs are donated” (presumed consent). It is explored whether this nudge leads to significantly higher organ donation rates than the default setting “organs are not donated“ based on data from the eight member countries of the Eurotransplant organization. The analysis shows that higher organ donation rates are not driven by higher mortality rates alone. The results for Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria are presented separately. These countries share similar socio-economic characteristics. Factors influencing organ donor rates are discussed as are possible problems and distortions of the donation rates. In addition, it is discussed to what extent a nudge in the field of organ donation can be ethically legitimized. The analyses show that, in countries with presumed consent, organ donation rates are significantly higher than in countries without this rule. However, it was not possible to identify the legal regulation as the sole cause of this difference. In Deutschland sterben im Durchschnitt pro Tag drei Menschen, die vergeblich auf eine Organspende warten, so die Deutsche Stiftung Organtransplantation. In diesem Beitrag wird die Wirksamkeit eines Nudges mit der Einstellung des Defaults „Organe werden gespendet“ (Widerspruchslösung) diskutiert. Nachgegangen wird der Frage, ob dieser Nudge zu signifikant höheren Organspenderaten führt als der Default „Organe werden nicht gespendet“ anhand von Daten der acht Mitgliedsländer der Organisation Eurotransplant. Anhand der Analysen kann ausgeschlossen werden, dass eine höhere Organspenderate lediglich auf eine höhere Sterberate zurückzuführen ist. Separat vorgestellt werden zudem Ergebnisse für die Länder Deutschland, Niederlande, Belgien und Österreich. Diese Länder weisen ähnliche sozioökonomische Merkmale auf. Erörtert werden Einflussfaktoren auf die Organspenderaten und mögliche Probleme und Verzerrungen der Raten. Darüber hinaus wird diskutiert, inwiefern ein Nudge im Bereich der Organspende ethisch zu legitimieren ist. Das Ergebnis der Analysen: In Ländern mit Widerspruchsregelung ist die Organspenderate signifikant höher als in Ländern ohne entsprechende Regelung; die gesetzliche Regelung ist aber nicht eindeutig als Ursache isolierbar.

Suggested Citation

  • Elisabeth Eberling, 2018. "Widerspruchslösung – ein Weg zu höheren Organspenderaten?," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 87(2), pages 153-168.
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:87-2-11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://elibrary.duncker-humblot.com/zeitschriften/id/25/vol/87/iss/1919/art/10023/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Organ donation; presumed consent; nudge;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • K32 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Energy, Environmental, Health, and Safety Law

    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:diw:diwvjh:87-2-11. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    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.