Philippe Fevrier (ENSAE) Sebastien Gay (University of Chicago)
Abstract
Two types of legislation underlie cadaveric organ donations: presumed consent (PC) and informed consent (IC). In informed consent countries, people are only donors when deceased if they registered to do so while alive. Conversely, in presumed consent countries, anybody is a potential donor when deceased. People have thus to register if they do not want to donate their body. PC has always been perceived as the “best” system for society in terms of organ donations whereas IC is supposed to be more ethical. However, in both systems, the family has a say, especially for the deceased who did not sign anything while alive. Taking the family decision into account, we show that the previous results may be reversed. The difference between both systems resides in the way an individual can commit to his/her will, eventually against the opinion of his/her family. IC can dominate PC in terms of organ donations whereas PC can be a more ethical system. In the general case, two opposite effects are at stake and the result depends on the extent to which people stay in the default situation. We discuss several causes of inactions (death taboo, procrastination, anticipated regret,...) and their impact on both the individual and the family.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by EconWPA in its series HEW with number
0509007.
Length: 19 pages Date of creation: 23 Sep 2005 Date of revision: Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwphe:0509007
Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 19 Contact details of provider: Web page: http://129.3.20.41
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (EconWPA).
Related research
Keywords:
Find related papers by JEL classification: D19 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Other I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Sendhil Mullainathan & Richard H. Thaler, 2000.
"Behavioral Economics,"
NBER Working Papers
7948, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
James Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte Madrian & Andrew Metrick, 2003.
"Passive Decisions and Potent Defaults,"
NBER Working Papers
9917, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions:
James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian & Andrew Metrick, 2005.
"Passive Decisions and Potent Defaults,"
NBER Chapters,
in: Analyses in the Economics of Aging, pages 59-78
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
[Downloadable!]