Systematic Review of Public Preferences for the Allocation of Donor Organs for Transplantation: Principles of Distributive Justice

• Published in: The patient : patient-centered outcomes research Vol. 12; no. 5; pp. 475 - 489
• Main Authors: Oedingen, Carina, Bartling, Tim, Mühlbacher, Axel C., Schrem, Harald, Krauth, Christian
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 01-10-2019; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Blood & organ donations; Distributive justice; Egalitarianism; Ethics; Health Administration; Health Economics; Medical prognosis; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes; Principles; Public Health; Quality of Life Research; Society; Success; Supply & demand; Systematic Review; Transplants & implants; Germany
• ISSN: 1178-1653; 1178-1661
• DOI: 10.1007/s40271-019-00363-0

Background
Solid organ transplantation is the treatment of choice for organ failure, but donor organs are a scarce resource because of a large mismatch between supply and demand. This scarcity leads to an ethical dilemma, forcing priority setting in organ allocation to individual patients. Little is known about public preferences regarding priority setting in organ allocation. A systematic review was performed to review the existing evidence and provide an overview of the criteria and criterion levels in regard to ethical aspects of distributive justice.
Methods
The PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO and PsycINFO databases were searched for literature published between January 2000 and December 2018. Only original studies were selected. The criteria were identified, extracted and grouped into a self-developed matrix according to the principles of distributive justice to ascertain public preferences.
Results
Overall, 9645 references were identified, and 15 studies were included. In total, 27 criteria clustered in seven theory-guided groups could be identified: “equality”, “effectiveness/benefit”, “medical urgency”, “own fault”, “value for society”, “medical background” and “sociodemographic status”. It was shown that not only a single principle but rather a combination of principles are relevant for the allocation. Therefore, a public propensity towards a rational utilitarian ethical model of allocation could be recognised.
Conclusions
The general public not only wanted to allocate organs mainly to those with a good probability of having a successful transplantation but also wanted to consider those who need an organ most urgently to prevent fatal consequences, resulting in unclear trade-offs between effectiveness/benefit and medical urgency. Public preferences for organ allocation are therefore complex, and data regarding clear trade-offs are still lacking.