encouraging Altruism: public attitudes and the marketing of organ donation
jeffrey M. Prottas
University health policy Consortium,
brandeis University
Milbank Memorial fund quarterly/ health and society, Vol. 61, no. 2, 1983
1983 Milbank Memorial fund and Massachusetts Institute of technology
279
marketing framework
in organ donation since the "buyer" or contributor can receive no personal benefit from the organ itself, his motivation is, therefore, not self-evident.
there are a variety of psychological costs associated with organ donation ranging from the anxiety of attending to fear-inducing messages to the guilt of affirming the death of a loved one by authorising their dismemberment.
a successful marketing strategy must
280
consider not only the nature and benefit of the product (transplant) being sold but it prices, however charged.
distribution of attitudes toward the product within a population must be considered.
organ donation... cannot, in practice, be authorised for oneself but only for a close relative. this intimate connection between organ donation and death and family plays a determinate role ( or ought to) in defining marketing strategies. it also poses the most interesting and challenging problem in the nurturing and harnessing of altruism.
altruism : disinterested and selfless concern for well-being of others
281
the government also has a financial interest in regulating transplantation.
dialysis patients $25,000 -$30,000 per year + Income for support of some sort
kidney transplant costs the same as one years dialysis treatment with minimal costs after.
idea: incentive to government to advertise on the donation more
282
the shortage of organ transplants does not reflect an absence of organised efforts to obtain the organs
283
the marketing of organ donation
public attitudes
public opinion surveys over the last 15 years have constantly found that Americans are very positive attitude towards organ donation. in 1968, Gallup poll found that 70% of Americans expressed a general willingness to become organ donors ( Kaufman et al. 1979).
however deterioration support responses when the questions asked became more concrete and personal.
1975 Los Angeles survey... support dropped an additional 20% points to 30% when people asked if they would actually give permission to remove the kidneys of the dead relative.
need to illustrate the importance of discussing transplant decisions with family
284
marketing goals
ideally you want someone to bind themselves while living, to donate their organs in the event of their death.- Sign the donor card
285
no hospital is willing to face the conflicts, adverse publicity or legal action that might follow from acting against family's wishes.
donation and motivation
why a family would agree to donate members organs.
acting out of altruism
carrying out deceased wishes
mitigate the impact of death
taking an opportunity to" rehabilitate" the deceased via a socially approved act.
286
in 1982 a large organ procurement agency mailed a survey 298 donor families in New England about their feelings about the donation they had authorised.
80% response rate
why they had agreed to permit donation
79%- desire to help others
59%- desire that something positive came out of the death of their relative.
they report that families frequently explain their decision to permit donation in terms of seeking attacks continued life the relatives
families agree to donation more readily if the deceased has expressed an intention to donate, or at the least has supported the concept of organ donation.
287
the 1975 survey in Los Angeles and St. Louis each contained a question asking if the respondent believed that their family would carry out their wish to have the organ donated after their death. In each case, the yes response was between 68% and 60%
288
most concrete impacts productive aim ought to be to motivate people to express their wishes to their families
to practical impact of uniform anatomical gift act and donor cards is to provide an occasion to inform one's family of the potential donor's wishes.
the 1981 national survey found that 16% of those surveyed had discussed organ donation
these figures are so much lower than those indicating willingness to act upon expressed wishes that this seems an obvious area to concentrate marketing efforts. not only is there a large pool of people willing to be persuaded, but the action being asked of them is simple and concrete.
289
presumably, those favourable inclined predominate among people who act on the urging of advertisement and they may act as opinion leaders on this issue in their families.
altruism is not an easy" product" to sell.
from a marketing point of view, the role of the product is to reinforce the behaviour urged by the advertising. price, of course, affect the willingness of the consumer to act.
to be an organ donor, therefore, is to give away something of no value and gain status thereby. however our cultural attitudes towards death and the great time and psychological distance between the decision to participate and the opportunity 's to do so alter this picture.
death- taboo in our society
290
to think about death is hard. To make plans for after their death is harder. Getting them to discuss their death with their family yet harder. getting them to do this based not on there financial responsibilities to their dependence but purely as a consideration of benefits to strangers multiplies the problem even further.
so sensitive is the issue that, until very recently, organ donation advertisements, avoided completely the use of the word death!
primary cost of involvement in the donation is confronting fear
confronting family and deal with anxiety and perhaps anger that results
donors are, on the whole, less religious than non-donors ( Simmons, Simmons, and Simmons 1971)
the most commonly expressed fear encountered by those involved in organ procurement is the fear that agreeing to become a donor would negatively affect the treatment one receives in hospital
this
No comments:
Post a Comment