Literature DB >> 11460227

Allocation of transplantable organs: do people want to punish patients for causing their illness?

P A Ubel1, C Jepson, J Baron, T Mohr, S McMorrow, D A Asch.   

Abstract

Some people believe patients with alcoholic cirrhosis should not receive equal priority for scarce transplantable organs. This may reflect a belief that these patients (1) are personally responsible for causing their own illnesses, (2) have poor transplant prognoses, or (3) are unworthy because they have engaged in socially undesirable behavior. We explore the roles that social desirability and personal responsibility have in people's judgments about transplant allocation. We presented prospective jurors with 4 scenarios, asking them to distribute 100 transplantable organs among 2 groups of 100 patients each. In each scenario, 1 group of patients, but not the other, was described as having a history of unhealthy behavior (alcohol or cigarette use) associated with a poorer prognosis. In some scenarios, alcohol or cigarette use was said to cause the organ failure. In others, it only contributed to the patients' transplant prognosis. We also obtained self-reports of subjects' own smoking status. Subjects allocated significantly fewer than half the organs to those with unhealthy behaviors and worse prognoses (33%; P <.001), but the specific behavior (alcohol versus cigarette use) was not significantly associated with subjects' allocation choices. Significantly fewer organs were allocated to patients with behavior responsible for causing their diseases than to other patients (P <.0001). Subjects who never smoked discriminated the most and current smokers discriminated the least against patients with a history of unhealthy behavior (P <.0001). The public's transplantation allocation preferences are influenced by whether patients' behaviors are said to have caused their organ failure.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11460227     DOI: 10.1053/jlts.2001.25361

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Liver Transpl        ISSN: 1527-6465            Impact factor:   5.799


  10 in total

Review 1.  Societal values in the allocation of healthcare resources: is it all about the health gain?

Authors:  Tania Stafinski; Devidas Menon; Deborah Marshall; Timothy Caulfield
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 2.  Ethical issues associated with solid organ transplantation and substance use: a scoping review.

Authors:  Lauren Notini; Denitsa Vasileva; Ani Orchanian-Cheff; Daniel Z Buchman
Journal:  Monash Bioeth Rev       Date:  2019-12

3.  When a liver transplant recipient goes back to alcohol abuse: Should we be more selective?

Authors:  Monica Leon; Joseph Varon; Salim Surani
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-05-28       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Images of illness: how causal claims and racial associations influence public preferences toward diabetes research spending.

Authors:  Sarah E Gollust; Paula M Lantz; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  J Health Polit Policy Law       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.265

Review 5.  Systematic Review of Public Preferences for the Allocation of Donor Organs for Transplantation: Principles of Distributive Justice.

Authors:  Carina Oedingen; Tim Bartling; Axel C Mühlbacher; Harald Schrem; Christian Krauth
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  A Recast Framework for Welfare Deservingness Perceptions.

Authors:  Carlo Michael Knotz; Mia Katharina Gandenberger; Flavia Fossati; Giuliano Bonoli
Journal:  Soc Indic Res       Date:  2021-08-20

7.  Exploring the roles of trust and social group preference on the legitimacy of algorithmic decision-making vs. human decision-making for allocating COVID-19 vaccinations.

Authors:  Marco Lünich; Kimon Kieslich
Journal:  AI Soc       Date:  2022-04-21

8.  Knowledge and ethical perception regarding organ donation among medical students.

Authors:  Nisreen Feroz Ali; Amal Qureshi; Basmah Naser Jilani; Nosheen Zehra
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2013-09-27       Impact factor: 2.652

9.  Who should receive treatment? An empirical enquiry into the relationship between societal views and preferences concerning healthcare priority setting.

Authors:  Vivian Reckers-Droog; Job van Exel; Werner Brouwer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-06-27       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Using Societal Values to Inform Public Health Policy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Health Preference Research.

Authors:  Rachael L DiSantostefano; Fern Terris-Prestholt
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 3.883

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.