英格兰为何在 2019 年修改了有关死者器官捐献的法律?证据与价值观之间的动态相互作用。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Lorraine Williams, Jennifer Bostock, Jane Noyes, Leah McLaughlin, Stephen O'Neill, Mustafa Al-Haboubi, Paul Boadu, Nicholas Mays
{"title":"英格兰为何在 2019 年修改了有关死者器官捐献的法律?证据与价值观之间的动态相互作用。","authors":"Lorraine Williams, Jennifer Bostock, Jane Noyes, Leah McLaughlin, Stephen O'Neill, Mustafa Al-Haboubi, Paul Boadu, Nicholas Mays","doi":"10.1017/S1744133124000112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the three years since the law on adult deceased organ donation consent in England changed to include an opt-out system, there has been no discernible change to donation rates. The lack of a positive impact on donation rates was predicted by many of those who took part in debates before and during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. This invites the question as to why England moved to an opt-out system for organ donation despite equivocal evidence of likely benefit and opposition from expert health professional organisations. To address this question qualitative analyses of Parliamentary debates on organ donation was undertaken. This revealed a shift from a dominant position, which gave primacy to the evidence of likely effects, towards a more normative position where a deemed consent option was viewed as the 'correct thing to do' and the limited and conflicting evidence viewed in a positive light. By 2017, following Wales's move to an opt-out system, together with continued lobbying for similar changes for England by professional and patient groups, alongside sustained public popularity for organ donation, the balance of opinion had shifted towards a system where deemed consent would become the default position for most English adults.</p>","PeriodicalId":46836,"journal":{"name":"Health Economics Policy and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why did England change its law on deceased organ donation in 2019? The dynamic interplay between evidence and values.\",\"authors\":\"Lorraine Williams, Jennifer Bostock, Jane Noyes, Leah McLaughlin, Stephen O'Neill, Mustafa Al-Haboubi, Paul Boadu, Nicholas Mays\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1744133124000112\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In the three years since the law on adult deceased organ donation consent in England changed to include an opt-out system, there has been no discernible change to donation rates. The lack of a positive impact on donation rates was predicted by many of those who took part in debates before and during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. This invites the question as to why England moved to an opt-out system for organ donation despite equivocal evidence of likely benefit and opposition from expert health professional organisations. To address this question qualitative analyses of Parliamentary debates on organ donation was undertaken. This revealed a shift from a dominant position, which gave primacy to the evidence of likely effects, towards a more normative position where a deemed consent option was viewed as the 'correct thing to do' and the limited and conflicting evidence viewed in a positive light. By 2017, following Wales's move to an opt-out system, together with continued lobbying for similar changes for England by professional and patient groups, alongside sustained public popularity for organ donation, the balance of opinion had shifted towards a system where deemed consent would become the default position for most English adults.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46836,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Economics Policy and Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Economics Policy and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133124000112\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Economics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133124000112","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自英格兰关于成人死者器官捐献同意的法律改为包括选择不捐献制度以来的三年中,捐献率没有发生明显变化。在该法案通过议会之前和期间参加辩论的许多人都预测到了捐赠率没有受到积极影响。这就引出了一个问题,即为什么英格兰要实行器官捐献的 "选择退出 "制度,尽管有模棱两可的证据表明该制度可能会带来好处,而且专家保健专业组织也表示反对。为了解决这个问题,我们对议会关于器官捐献的辩论进行了定性分析。结果显示,人们的立场发生了转变,从将可能产生影响的证据放在首位的主导立场转变为更加规范的立场,即认为同意选项是 "正确的做法",并从积极的角度看待有限且相互矛盾的证据。到 2017 年,随着威尔士转向选择退出制度,加上专业团体和患者团体不断游说英格兰进行类似改革,以及公众对器官捐献的持续支持,舆论的天平已转向认为同意将成为大多数英格兰成年人默认立场的制度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why did England change its law on deceased organ donation in 2019? The dynamic interplay between evidence and values.

In the three years since the law on adult deceased organ donation consent in England changed to include an opt-out system, there has been no discernible change to donation rates. The lack of a positive impact on donation rates was predicted by many of those who took part in debates before and during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. This invites the question as to why England moved to an opt-out system for organ donation despite equivocal evidence of likely benefit and opposition from expert health professional organisations. To address this question qualitative analyses of Parliamentary debates on organ donation was undertaken. This revealed a shift from a dominant position, which gave primacy to the evidence of likely effects, towards a more normative position where a deemed consent option was viewed as the 'correct thing to do' and the limited and conflicting evidence viewed in a positive light. By 2017, following Wales's move to an opt-out system, together with continued lobbying for similar changes for England by professional and patient groups, alongside sustained public popularity for organ donation, the balance of opinion had shifted towards a system where deemed consent would become the default position for most English adults.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Economics Policy and Law
Health Economics Policy and Law HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: International trends highlight the confluence of economics, politics and legal considerations in the health policy process. Health Economics, Policy and Law serves as a forum for scholarship on health policy issues from these perspectives, and is of use to academics, policy makers and health care managers and professionals. HEPL is international in scope, publishes both theoretical and applied work, and contains articles on all aspects of health policy. Considerable emphasis is placed on rigorous conceptual development and analysis, and on the presentation of empirical evidence that is relevant to the policy process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信