Around 1,450 people in Switzerland are currently waiting for an organ, such as a heart, liver or kidney. The transplantation law, which the Swiss electorate will vote on May 15, would improve the chances of those affected to donate an organ, said Health Minister Alain Berset in the “Arena”.
The core of the proposal is the so-called extended objection solution. This stipulates that someone who does not want to donate their organs must explicitly state this during their lifetime. If the will is not known, one would assume that the person wants to donate organs.
In this case, the relatives would be consulted
If they do not know whether the person concerned wants to donate their organs, they can still object to the removal if they assume that the person would not have wanted it. The guests on the show agreed that there was a need for action.
However, the path proposed by the Federal Council and Parliament was highly controversial. The focus of the “Arena” was in particular the question of how the actual will of a deceased person can be determined. Right from the start, Federal Councilor Berset verbally crossed swords with ethics professor Peter Kirchschläger.
It has not been proven that the new regulation will lead to more organ donations, said Kirchschläger, professor of theological ethics and member of the referendum committee. Instead, the new approach to the contradiction solution would represent a “fundamental paradigm shift”.
No more organ donations by law?
Irrespective of the fact that the contradiction solution is not effective, it violates the fundamental rights of a liberal constitutional state, Kirchschläger explained. “The state simply accesses it like a spare parts warehouse.”
It is not tenable that the basic right to self-determination and physical integrity only applies if it is actively demanded. “That is ethically highly problematic.” According to Kirchschläger, one of the main problems lies in providing the population with comprehensive information.
If relatives cannot be consulted, no organs are removed.
“No one can guarantee that all sections of the population will find out about the new solution.” One has to reckon with the fact that certain people would automatically become donors without wanting to. FDP national councilor Regine Sauter disagreed that the extended objection solution was entirely compatible with the fundamental rights of the liberal constitutional state.
Opposing side says pressure on relatives is increasing
In addition, the new regulation would provide relief for relatives. These could now assume that the person concerned basically agrees to an organ donation if they did not object to it during their lifetime.
“It is an illusion to believe that the pressure on the relatives will disappear,” said Susanne Clauss, co-chair of the referendum committee. The nurse and midwife is convinced that there will be a change in society.
It makes a big difference whether the state puts pressure on me to give up my organs or gives me the opportunity to express myself.
When a decision is made, the relatives would see themselves under increased pressure to agree to an organ donation so as not to be seen as “lacking solidarity”. The referendum committee repeatedly referred to the so-called explanatory model as a possible alternative. Here, the population would be repeatedly asked about “organ donation”.
Sauter detects a contradiction here
If the explanatory model ensures that every Swiss person can comment on organ donation, that also means that there are ways to reach everyone. The comprehensive information of the population could therefore be achieved with a yes to the transplantation law.
We who still have a chance at life will sometimes forget something.
Michelle Hug, who has a donor heart herself, was also invited to the show. “I think it’s important to remember the deceased, but we who still have a chance at life sometimes forget something,” she said.
You are six times more likely to need an organ than to become a donor. Sauter agreed: “If it goes without saying that you get an organ when you need one when you get sick, it should also go without saying that you donate your organs when you die.”
No partisan vote
The program showed that when voting on the transplant law, there were also very personal questions that went beyond party slogans. “If a vote cannot be discussed in partisan politics, then this one,” said Federal Councilor Berset.
How the electorate decides will be shown on May 15, 2022. According to the latest gfs survey, a good three-fifths of those entitled to vote are in favor of changing the Transplantation Act.