Social Science Statistics Blog

Categories

• Regular Post

The results on organ donation in Europe are particularly striking, as the authors show that large differences in organ donation rates in otherwise similar European nations

No. You are propagating an error Ariely makes here. The research doesn't show this at all. The stuff on defaults is very good, but what is shows is the large change that a different default option causes in the number of people who are willing in principle to sign up as organ donors. This is very different from bringing about an increase in the actual rate of cadaveric organ donation, because the latter process is subject to a lot of complicated logistical constraints and -- with one or two exceptions -- even in presumed-consent countries allows for the next-of-kin to veto organ procurement. This makes organ procurement a very different process from, e.g., changing the defaults about retirement accounts, because in the retirement case the initial decision is sufficient to make the desired end happen.

For more context, and a plot of the differences in actual organ procurement rates between informed- and presumed-consent countries, see this post.

Hi John. Thanks for your response. I think your questions were mostly addressed in my post:

The data points correspond to organ donation rates by year, but it's not a time series so there's no way to know which points correspond to which year.

As I say in the post, "I want to focus on average differences between countries so I don’t show the time series itself. Click here for a figure showing the time trends."

Furthermore, do all of these points correspond to only being on one side or the other of a change in informed consent law? Or did some of these countries change their informed consent policies during the 1990-2002 time frame? This would be important information to know, particularly if we're interested in whether these laws have any effect on actual organ donation.

Again, as it says in the post, "Incidentally, all of the countries shown here had their legal regime set as presumed- or informed-consent before the period covered by the data, so the often large within-country variability can’t be explained by the opt-in or opt-out defaults. Italy’s procurement rate, for instance, grew rapidly in the 1990s with no change in the law."

In the presumed-consent countries with the fastest-growing procurement rates, the law has been in place long before the time series begins. As far as we can tell, it is investment in the organizational infrastructure of procurement that makes the difference, not the letter of the law. These logistical questions, and the fact that most nominally presumed-consent countries still allow next of kin to veto procurement, are typically ignored in policy debates in this area.

Great Post. However is the data on the table actually acurate based on what have said in the article. Very informative though.

Great Post. However is the data on the table actually acurate based on what have said in the article. Very informative though.

In the presumed-consent countries with the fastest-growing procurement rates, the law has been in place long before the time series begins. As far as we can tell, it is investment in the organizational infrastructure of procurement that makes the difference, not the letter of the law. These logistical questions, and the fact that most nominally presumed-consent countries still allow next of kin to veto procurement, are typically ignored in policy debates in this area.

Great Post. Very informative though.

Quite interesting! :-)