Læknablaðið - 01.10.2014, Blaðsíða 29

LÆKNAblaðið 2014/100 525
R A N N S Ó K N
ENGLISH SUMMARY
introduction: organ transplant is often the only viable treatment for
patients with end-stage organ failure. until now, Icelandic legislation has
required informed consent for organ donors, but a new parliamentary
bill has been put forth to change the laws to presumed consent. The
goal of this study was to investigate the attitude of the Icelandic popula-
tion towards legislative changes to presumed consent.
Materials and methods: descriptive cross-sectional study using a
questionnaire. The study population included all Icelanders, 18 years
and older. The sample involved 1400 persons randomly selected from a
Capacent Gallup mailing-list. The response rate was 63% or 880 ans-
wers.
Results: The majority of Icelanders are in favour of the proposed
legislative change (more than 80%). Women were more likely to support
presumed consent than men, 85% versus 76% respectively. Younger
participants were more likely to be positive towards the new law, but no
significant difference was found in attitude by family income, demograp-
hics or education. Persons who knew someone close to them that had
received a transplanted organ were 50% more likely to be in complete
agreement with the proposed legislation. only 5% of participants were
currently registered organ donors – 29 women and 15 men.
Conclusion: Icelanders are very positive towards changing the law
to include presumed consent in organ donation. Women and younger
people tended to be more in favour and similarly those who know
someone that has received donated organs. A majority of responders
are willing to donate their organs, but very few are registered as donors.
key words: Organ donations, transplantations, presumed consent, public attitude.
Correspondence: Ársæll Arnarson, aarnarson@unak.is
Public attitudes Towards Presumed Consent in Organ Donation in iceland
Karen Runarsdottir, Kjartan olafsson, Arsaell Arnarsson
Heimildir
1. Pálsson R. Betur má ef duga skal. Læknablaðið 2005; 91:
404-5.
2. Hagstofa Íslands - Hagtíðindi 2013;2. www.hagstofa.is -
ágúst 2013
3. Grunnet N, Asmundsson P, Bentdal O, Madsen M, Persson
NH, Salmela K, et al. Organ donation, allocation, and
transplantation in the Nordic countries: Scandiatransplant
1999. Transplant Proc 2001; 33: 2505-10.
4. Lög um brottnám líffæra nr. 16/1991 með áorðnum
breytingum 61/1998. althingi.is/lagas/140a/1991016.
html – september 2014.
5. Lög um ákvörðun dauða nr. 15/1991 með áorðnum
breytingum 162/2010. althingi.is/lagas/143a/1991015.
html – september 2014.
6. van Dalen HP, Henkens K. Comparing the effects of
defaults in organ donation systems. Soc Sci Med 2014; 106:
137-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.052
7. Frumvarp til laga um breytingu á lögum um brottnám
líffæra 16/1991. althingi.is/altext/143/s/0034.html –
september 2014.
8. Garcia-Valdecasas JC. European approach to increasing
organ donation: European Union donor card, presumed
consent, and other innovations. Liver Transpl 2012;
18(Supp2): s8-s9. DOI: 10.1002/lt.23538
9. Scandiatransplant. Transplantation figures for 1. Quarter
2014 scandiatransplant.org/data/copy_of_sctp_figures_
2014 _1Q.pdf – september 2014.
10. Michielsen P. Presumed consent to organ donation: 10
years experience in Belgium. J Roy Soc Med 1996; 89: 663-
6.
11. Healy K. Do Presumed Consent Laws Raise Organ
Procurement Rates? DePaul LawReview 2006; 55: 1017-43.
12. Bendorf A, Pussell BA, Kelly2 PJ, Kerridge IH.
Socioeconomic, demographic and policy comparisons of
living and deceased kidney transplantation rates across 53
countries. Nephrol 2013; 18: 633-40.
13. Dominguez J, Rojas JL. Presumed consent legislation
failed to improve organ donation in Chile. Transpl Proc
2013; 45: 1316-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2013.01.008
14. Rithalia A, McDaid C, Suekarran S, Myers L, Sowden
A. Impact of presumed consent for organ donation on
donation rates: a systematic review. BMJ 2009; 338: 1-8.
15. Sanner, M. A Comparison of Public Attitudes Toward
Autopsy, Organ Donation, and Anatomic Dissection: A
Swedish Survey. JAMA 1994; 271: 284-8.
16. Sanner MA. People’s attitudes and reactions to organ
donation. Mortality 2006; 11: 133-50.
17. Boulware L, Ratner L, Sosa J, Cooper L, LaVeist T, Powe
N. Determinants of willingness to donate living related
and cadaveric organs: identifying opportunities for
intervention. Transpl 2002; 73: 1683-91.

18. Mocana N, Tekinb E. The determinants of the willingness
to donate an organ among young adults: Evidence from
the United States and the European Union. Soc Sci Med
2007; 65: 2527-38.
19. Coad L, Carter N, Ling J. Attitudes of young adults from
the UK towards organ donation and transplantation.
Transpl Res 2013, 2: 9.
20. Domínguez-Gil B, Martín MJ, Valentín MO, Scandroglio
B, Coll E, López, JS, et al. Decrease in refusals to donate in
Spain despite change in the populations attitude towards
donation. Org Tiss Cells 2010; 13: 17-24.
21. British Medical Association. Building on progress: Where
next for organ donation policy in the UK. bma.org.uk/
september 2014.
22. Karason S, Johannsson R, Gunnarsdottir K, Asmundsson
P, Sigvaldason K. Líffæragjafir á Íslandi 1992-2002.
Læknablaðið 2005; 91: 417-22.
23. Spital A. Mandated choice for organ donation: time to give
it a try. Ann Int Med 1996; 125: 66–9.
24. Schutt RK. Investigating the Social World. The Process
and Practice of Research (7. útg.). Sage Publication, Boston
2012.