Background. Historically, brain death legislation was adopted in Asia at a much later stage than it was in the West, with heated public debates surrounding these laws. In this study, we investigated whether the poor acceptance of brain death continues to the present day, focusing on the following: (1) what the Asian public understands brain death to be; (2) how views toward brain death are compared with those of cardiac death; and (3) the extent to which brain death perception contributes to the low rate of deceased organ donation that has been observed amongst Asians. Methods. Using a door-to-door sampling strategy, we recruited 622 residents in Singapore between September 2016 and July 2017. Results. Our results suggest that resistance toward brain death persists, with the majority of respondents equating this as a bleak outcome but not as death. Correspondingly, they considered cardiac death a better indicator of death and were more fearful of being alive during organ donation. In turn, these views predicted a decreased willingness to donate either their own or their family members’ organs. Conclusions. Taken together, our results suggest that views of brain death continue to hamper organ donation, and are seemingly resistant to both time and legislation.

This paper investigates what drives countries to legislate presumed consent-making citizens organ donors by default unless they opt out-instead of explicit consent. A wide range of economic, social, political, institutional, and demographic variables is used. Results reveal the following: (i) civil law predicts presumed consent, which uncovers a mechanism by which an institution that long pre-dates transplantation medicine has an impact on current health outcomes; (ii) Protestantism predicts explicit consent; and (iii) higher pro-social behavior decreases the likelihood of presumed consent. The plausible mechanisms and implications are discussed.

No abstract

ObjectivesIntensive care audits point to family refusal as a major barrier to organ donation. In this study, we sought to understand refusal by accounting for the decision-maker’s mindset. This focused on: (1) how decisions compare when made on behalf of a relative (vs the self); and (2) confidence in decisions made for family members.DesignCross-sectional survey in Singapore.SettingParticipants were recruited from community settings via door-to-door sampling and community eateries.Participants973 adults who qualified as organ donors in Singapore.ResultsAlthough 68.1% of participants were willing to donate their own organs, only 51.8% were willing to donate a relative’s organs. Using machine learning, we found that consistency was predicted by: (1) religion, and (2) fears about organ donation. Conversely, participants who were willing to donate their own organs but not their relative’s were less driven by these factors, and may instead have resorted to heuristics in decision-making. Finally, we observed how individuals were overconfident in their decision-making abilities: although 78% had never discussed organ donation with their relatives, the large majority expressed high confidence that they would respect their relatives’ wishes on death.ConclusionsThese findings underscore the distinct psychological processes involved when donation decisions are made for family members. Amidst a global shortage of organ donors, addressing the decision-maker’s mindset (eg, overconfidence, the use of heuristics) may be key to actualizing potential donors identified in intensive care units.