BACKGROUND: Despite broad community support for organ donation, there is a chronic shortage of donor organs for transplantation. This study elicited community attitudes on deceased organ donation and the current Australian organ donation system. METHODS: Thirteen focus groups with 114 participants aged between 18 and 75 years. Qualitative analysis using a grounded theory approach was used. RESULTS: Participants were generally positive toward deceased organ donation, but this did not always translate to decisions to be a donor. Three main categories of themes emerged. (1) Participants held core beliefs that both encouraged donation, such as "giving is good" and "saving lives," and discouraged donation, such as loss of body dignity, need for body wholeness, and differing medical care for donors. (2) A range of factors could influence how core beliefs were weighted in the decision-making process, including family, knowledge, information, media, grief, apathy, and fear. (3) Participants discussed the need for a simpler consent system where family members could not overrule their donation decision, greater public awareness for organ donation, and the availability of more information on the organ donation process. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities exist to improve deceased organ donation rates by education to improve confidence in the donation process, positive media coverage, and clear information on each religion's stance on organ donation. Options for greater public recognition for organ donors should be explored. Finally, our findings suggest that aspects of the current donation consent system are not aligned with community values, and reforms should be debated publicly.
BACKGROUND: Despite broad community support for organ donation, there is a chronic shortage of donor organs for transplantation. This study elicited community attitudes on deceased organ donation and the current Australian organ donation system. METHODS: Thirteen focus groups with 114 participants aged between 18 and 75 years. Qualitative analysis using a grounded theory approach was used. RESULTS:Participants were generally positive toward deceased organ donation, but this did not always translate to decisions to be a donor. Three main categories of themes emerged. (1) Participants held core beliefs that both encouraged donation, such as "giving is good" and "saving lives," and discouraged donation, such as loss of body dignity, need for body wholeness, and differing medical care for donors. (2) A range of factors could influence how core beliefs were weighted in the decision-making process, including family, knowledge, information, media, grief, apathy, and fear. (3) Participants discussed the need for a simpler consent system where family members could not overrule their donation decision, greater public awareness for organ donation, and the availability of more information on the organ donation process. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities exist to improve deceased organ donation rates by education to improve confidence in the donation process, positive media coverage, and clear information on each religion's stance on organ donation. Options for greater public recognition for organ donors should be explored. Finally, our findings suggest that aspects of the current donation consent system are not aligned with community values, and reforms should be debated publicly.
Authors: Vanessa Stadlbauer; Peter Steiner; Martin Schweiger; Michael Sereinigg; Karl-Heinz Tscheliessnigg; Wolfgang Freidl; Philipp Stiegler Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 2.652
Authors: Sonia Radunz; Tamás Benkö; Sabrina Stern; Fuat H Saner; Andreas Paul; Gernot M Kaiser Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 2.175
Authors: Angelique F Ralph; Ali Alyami; Richard D M Allen; Kirsten Howard; Jonathan C Craig; Steve J Chadban; Michelle Irving; Allison Tong Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Julie E Potter; Robert G Herkes; Lin Perry; Rosalind M Elliott; Anders Aneman; Jorge L Brieva; Elena Cavazzoni; Andrew T H Cheng; Michael J O'Leary; Ian M Seppelt; Val Gebski Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 2.655