Organ donation: Decision solution alone does not help

The agreement on a decision solution among the parliamentary groups in the Bundestag on March 1, 2012 with the aim of increasing the willingness to donate organs has been received with mixed feelings by the Executive Committee of the Humanist Association of Germany (HVD). “I welcome the fact that the five parliamentary groups were able to come together on this issue,” says Erwin Kress. However, he does not believe that this will guarantee higher donor numbers. “According to the Transplantation Act, the health insurance companies already had the task of providing information about organ donation and promoting it. They more or less stopped doing this when their efforts were not very successful. One reason for this was that many people put off thinking about their own death, and another was that many questions arose about which little information was provided. It is doubtful that the proposed wooden hammer method will significantly increase the willingness to donate,” continued Kress. Erwin Kress emphasized that already in 2010, in 74 percent of cases of potential organ donations in clinics, relatives had decided in favour of organ donation or a donor card was available. Of course, it would be desirable if significantly more than 75 percent of the population were in favor of organ donation and, if possible, documented this by means of a donor card. “However, this can only be expected if a comprehensive, honest and open position is taken on the many questions, and in some cases false information, that exist among those who are genuinely undecided or refuse to donate, without any embellishment. Glossing things over doesn’t help here.” The fact that there are comparatively few donor organs available in Germany for the patients who depend on them is largely due to the fact that many hospitals do not register or report all brain-dead patients as organ donors, although they are obliged to do so by law. According to Kress, urgent organizational improvements are required in the new law. A new problem also arises from the fact that more and more patients and relatives no longer make use of every possible intensive medical treatment. However, organ removal requires artificial respiration and other measures to preserve organs in the event of brain death. Kress: “Ways must be found, including by legislators, to resolve this contradiction where possible.” At the same time, Erwin Kress pleaded with humanists to consider the importance of the topic for themselves, to deal intensively with the question of their own willingness to donate organs at an early stage and thus also to relieve their relatives in the event of the worst-case scenario. “The documented willingness to donate organs demonstrates practical humanism. A donation can prolong the lives of others and help reduce suffering. In my view, there are therefore numerous valid arguments for informing oneself independently and at an early stage about the conditions of organ donation and – if there are no good reasons against it – to declare one’s willingness to do so.”