| Title |
Ethically Acceptable Compensation for Living Donations of Organs, Tissues, and Cells: An Unexploited Potential?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40258-018-0421-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Trine Tornøe Platz, Nikolaj Siersbæk, Lars Peter Østerdal |
| Abstract |
The number of living donations of human organs, tissues, and cells falls far short of the need. Market-like arrangements to increase donation rates have been proposed, but they are broadly considered unacceptable due to ethical concerns and are therefore not policy relevant in most countries. The purpose of this paper is to explore a different approach to increasing living donations, namely through the use of ethically acceptable compensation of donors. We review the compensation practices in Europe and find a lack of reimbursement of incurred costs and lack of compensation for non-monetary losses, which create disincentives for donation. We draw on a well-known philosophical theory to explain why donors are rarely fully compensated and why many existing proposals to raise donation rates are seen as controversial or even unethical. We present and discuss three categories of compensation with the potential to increase donation rates in an ethically acceptable way. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 2 | 40% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 3 | 19% |
| Engineering | 2 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,907,238
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#128
of 786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,865
of 334,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#8
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,301 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.