contents
The change from the consent to the extended objection solution is controversial. Likewise, whether there will be more organ donations. The people will decide on May 15th.
donate organs? In surveys, it is mostly a yes, but at the hospital bed it is usually a no: in over 60 percent of cases, the relatives decide against the removal of the organs because they do not know the wishes of the deceased person.
New: the “presumed consent”
This is where the revised Transplantation Act comes in. The Bernese SP National Councilor Flavia Wasserfallen from the Yes Committee explains: “We believe that it makes a psychological difference if we assume an assumed approval. This should reduce the rejection rate.” A lower rejection rate would mean more donated organs.
On the other hand, Alex Frei, doctor and co-president of the no-committee, counters: “The scientific proof that the objection regulation leads to a higher donation rate has not yet been provided.”
It has not yet been possible to provide scientific evidence that the opt-out rule leads to a higher donation rate.
“Indications” of a positive effect
This is also shown by studies commissioned by the federal government. One of these studies only recognizes “indications” that the contradiction model could positively influence the donation rate.
Health politician Wasserfallen emphasizes that a clear correlation between the contradiction model and the donation rate has never been claimed: “But the expression of will is an important piece of the puzzle when it comes to organ donation.”
The expression of will is an important piece of the puzzle when it comes to organ donation.
A look at other European countries shows that the countries with the highest donor rates – Spain, France and Italy – have a contradiction solution, but the circumstances cannot be compared. This is also shown by the data compiled by the federal government.
Ethicist Ruth Baumann-Hölzle has been dealing with the topic for a long time. Using the example of Spain, which has the highest donation rates in Europe, she explains what often goes unmentioned: “For example, there are financial incentives for hospital staff when they identify donors. The certification also takes into account if a hospital carries out organ removal.”
Basic objections to contradiction solution
The ethicist rejects the objection solution and is involved in the counter-committee. Her objections are fundamental and state-political: “Normally we assume that people have to be asked if you want something from them or take something from them. Especially at the end of life – incapacitated in an intensive care unit – all this should no longer apply. That’s very shocking.”
For the no-committee, the extended objection solution endangers the right to physical integrity, as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution: “The main problem is that one accepts that organs are removed from people who might not have wanted it.”
It is accepted that organs are removed from people who might not have wanted it.
The Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMS) counters that personal rights are protected as best as possible and that fundamental rights are not endangered by the paradigm shift: If the personal decision of a deceased person is missing and relatives cannot be reached, the organs may not be removed.
The change from the consent to the objection solution will not certainly bring more organ donations. The voters will decide on May 15 whether there is a yes or a no.