You are here

Decision Science News

July 30, 2013

Opt Out is Best Plan for Donors

Professor Eric Johnson's research on default design in organ donation was featured in The Philadelphia Inquirer in an article by Michael Smerconish.


 Godspeed to Sarah Murnaghan and Javier Acosta, both of whom are at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia suffering from the debilitating effects of cystic fibrosis. U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson granted them relief recently by allowing each to join the waiting list for an adult lung. This prompted the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network to create a special appeal and review system to hear cases such as theirs in which children need access to adult organs.

While Javier is still waiting, Sarah received a transplanted lung from an adult donor just days ago. But if we really want to swell the number of available hearts, lungs, livers, and corneas, there is a more obvious and expansive solution.

We need to start assuming that most people wish to be organ donors, while allowing those who object to opt out easily. The current policy in the United States is the opposite: an opt-in system.

An analysis in the Harvard Business Review five years ago noted that different organ donation policies in two neighboring, culturally similar countries, Germany and Austria, produced dramatically different results. In Germany, where citizens must opt into the donor pool, only 12 percent of the population had done so. In neighboring Austria, where all citizens are placed in the donor pool by default - although they can easily opt out - the share of the population in the pool was 99.98 percent!

As of 2010, 24 European countries had some form of opt-out system.

One of the coauthors of the Harvard Business Review article, Columbia Business School professor Eric J. Johnson, has made this issue the focus of his academic study for the last two decades. When I spoke to him last week, he said he was drawn to the subject for personal reasons. A cancer survivor, Johnson underwent a stem-cell transplant in which he served as his own donor. The experience made him appreciate his own fortune while recognizing the obstacles faced by those who need donations of bone marrow and other stem cells, which are in short supply for certain blood types.

Now Johnson believes that the key to increasing donations is to change the default option - the automatic selection made in the absence of a decision to the contrary. Such defaults are part of everyday life. When a car-rental company provides insurance unless you decline it, that is a default. Every time you click "next" as part of a quick installation of software on your computer, you are accepting a default.

In a 2003 analysis published in the journal Science, Johnson and coauthor Daniel G. Goldstein cited a study showing that while 85 percent of Americans support organ donation, less than half personally decide to become potential donors, and fewer still (28 percent) sign a donor card. Why? Johnson believes the discrepancy is attributable to the default assumption that most of us do not wish to donate, which requires us to opt in.

He suggests three reasons for the widespread failure to opt in. First, people are lazy. Second, making non-donation the default is seen as an implied endorsement of that position. Third, there is what economists call the "endowment effect," which describes our tendency to attach more value to what we already possess.

"If I am a donor, I don't want to change that state, because the warm glow of being a donor goes away," he explained. "On the other hand, if I'm not a donor, and you ask me to change, I start thinking about what it would be like to have my cadaver ... organs taken. So people are naturally drawn to the features of the object they are about to give up. That's a subtle but important psychological point."

In a 2004 article published in Transplantation, Johnson and Goldstein documented the power of defaults with a local example: Pennsylvania and New Jersey auto insurance defaults introduced in the early 1990s. New Jersey drivers had a limited right to sue by default, while Pennsylvania drivers had full litigation rights. While 79 percent of New Jersey drivers said they preferred limited litigation rights, 70 percent of Pennsylvania drivers said they preferred an unrestricted right to sue. Given that residents of neighboring states came to such opposite conclusions, the default option was clearly influencing their views.

"If you take a case like organ donation, you have to have a default," Johnson said. "The question is, What's the right default? ... Unfortunately, I think it gets politicized, when really it's an issue of what we call choice architecture. You've got to put the default somewhere. What's the one that would be in most people's best interest?"

The way to ensure that other families don't experience the pain felt by the Murnaghans and Acostas is to significantly expand the pool of available organs. On that we can all agree. But if we're serious about it, it's time to embrace an opt-out system.

Art Caplan, the head of the division of medical ethics at New York University's Langone Medical Center, agrees.

"Your organs aren't going to do you much good when you're dead ... [but they] can save other people's lives," Caplan said. "I think we'd get more donors if we just shifted the responsibility ... from saying, 'I want to do it,' to having to say, 'I don't want to do it.' Most people say they do want to donate, so why don't we make that the default?"

Why not indeed?

View original article

 

Join the Mailing List

Keep up with the latest decision science news by joining our mailing list.

SIGN UP NOW >

Participate in Online Studies

The center is continually recruiting people to participate in online studies.

Sign Up Online >

The Curl Ideas to wrap your mind around

Competing With Bias

Research shows how discrimination works in the hiring process and suggests that science and tech firms that leave it unaddressed may overlook talented female candidates.

Read More >

Katherine Phillips Named Senior Vice Dean

Effective July 1, 2014, Phillips will succeed Gita Johar, the Meyer Feldberg Professor of Business, whose three-year term as senior vice dean is ending.

Read More >

Financing China’s Future

China’s rapid urbanization strategy requires a financing system that can keep up. Shusong Ba of the State Council of China lays out economic and policy reforms that will help local governments cope with cities bursting at the seams.

Read More >

University Professors Awarded 2014 Eccles Prize

Two University professors have been awarded the 2014 George S. Eccles Prize for Excellence in Economic Writing.

Read More >

Tunisia's Fight for Democracy

The new Prime Minister explains how revolution is leading to freedom and a country of laws.

Read More >

Turkey's Hot-Money Problem

Ongoing financial volatility in emerging economies is fueling debate about whether the so-called “Fragile Five” — Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Turkey — should be viewed as victims of their excessive integration into global financial markets.

Read More >

Reforming China's State-Market Balance

Many of China’s problems today stem from too much market and too little government, says Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz.

Read More >

All-Star Pitchers Will Hate Instant Replay, According to New Research from Columbia Business School

Columbia Business School Professor Reviews Data of Nearly 800K MLB Pitches and Finds ‘Star-Struck’ Umpires Show Bias in Favor of All-Star Pitchers

Read More >

Event Connects Endowed Professors, Alumni

More than 60 distinguished Columbia Business School alumni, faculty, and staff members gathered at New York’s Le Parker Meridien hotel in Midtown for the School’s biennial Professorship Celebration on March 24. The event connects alumni who have supported endowed professorships and the professors who hold those chairs.

Read More >

Latest News

Find out about our upcoming events in our weekly Center for Decision Sciences newsletter.

Read the Newsletter >