Among 147 next-of-kin who consented to organ donation, 4% said they would not consent if they could decide again, according to Rodrigue, Cornell and Howard’s US interview study of 285 next-of-kin (Am J Transplant, 2008). The overwhelming majority — 94% — said they would make the same decision, with 2% unsure. UNOS data record that US deceased organ donors first exceeded 10,000 in 2017 (10,281 donors), so tens of thousands of next-of-kin now face this decision each year, typically under acute clinical time pressure with limited opportunity for deliberation. The constrained decision environment contributes to post-hoc doubt independent of the direction of the choice, but on the consent side that doubt is rare.
Refusal proved far less stable: of the 138 next-of-kin who declined donation, 27% said they would now consent if they could decide over, while only 64% would refuse again and 9% were unsure. A 2021 Singapore national survey (BMJ Open, n=973) helps explain the mechanism: 68.1% of respondents were willing to donate their own organs but only 51.8% would consent for a relative — a roughly 16-point gap showing that people apply a higher bar to a relative’s body than to their own. When that hesitation later meets evidence of donation’s value, the refusal becomes the decision people most often wish they could take back.
Under Gilovich and Medvec’s temporal model, inaction typically generates more durable long-term regret, and the gap here — 27% of refusers reversing versus 4% of consenters — is consistent with that pattern. The caveat is that both rates come from a single US study that measured decision instability (would you decide the same way again) rather than a validated regret scale, and from a one-time interview rather than a multi-year trajectory. The robust signal is the asymmetry: refusing is reversed roughly seven times as often as consenting. The precise percentages should be read as directional, not as population norms.
Źródła: działanie
Rejestr twierdzeń
Każda liczba poniżej jest tym, co podało dane źródło — z dosłownym cytatem, na którym się oparliśmy, i sposobem, w jaki doszliśmy do naszej wartości. Kliknij dowolny link, żeby zweryfikować bezpośrednio.
2/2 źródeł niezależnie zweryfikowanych słowo w słowo z podanym źródłem
[1]American Journal of Transplantation — The instability of organ donation decisions by next-of-kin and factors that predict it
Zweryfikowane
Recenzowane naukowo
Of 147 next-of-kin who consented to donation, 6 (4%) said they would not consent again, 138 (94%) would make the same decision, and 3 (2%) were unsure
Cytat
“"Of the 147 next-of-kin donors, 138 (94%) would make the same decision again, 6 (4%) would not consent to donation and 3 (2%) were unsure."
”
Dane źródłowe z
2008-12-01
Dostęp
2026-06-30
Weryfikacja
Cytat niezależnie pobrany ponownie i potwierdzony słowo w słowo z podanym źródłem podczas naszego audytu ugruntowania.
Obliczenie
Rodrigue JR, Cornell DL, Howard RJ (2008), Am J Transplant 8(12):2661-7, PMID 18853951. US interview study of 285 next-of-kin (147 donors, 138 nondonors). Decision instability is the directly measured construct: among consenters, 6/147 = 4% would not consent if they could decide again. Used directly as the action-side regret_rate of 0.04. Replaces a prior citation (PMID 21902727, Jansen/van Leiden Dutch consent-rate study) that measured family CONSENT RATES, not consenter regret, and did not support the previously stated 10% figure.
[2]United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) — Deceased organ donors in United States exceeded 10,000 for first time in 2017
Zweryfikowane
Raport rządowy
In 2017 US deceased organ donors first exceeded 10,000 (10,281 donors), so tens of thousands of next-of-kin face the donation decision each year
Cytat
“"During 2017, the number of deceased organ donors in the United States topped 10,000 for the first time, according to preliminary data from United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), which serves as the national Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) under federal contract. For the year, organs were recovered from 10,281 donors, representing a 3.1 percent increase over 2016 and an increase of 27 percent since 2007."
”
Dane źródłowe z
2018-01-09
Dostęp
2026-07-01
Weryfikacja
Cytat niezależnie pobrany ponownie i potwierdzony słowo w słowo z podanym źródłem podczas naszego audytu ugruntowania.
Obliczenie
UNOS news release (Jan 9, 2018) on national deceased-donor volume. Used as population-scale context: the number of realized deceased donors first exceeded 10,000 in 2017 (10,281). Because only a fraction of approached next-of-kin consent, the number of families who actually face the donation decision each year is even larger than the donor count. This source establishes US scale only and does not provide a regret rate; the regret figures come from Rodrigue et al. (2008). Replaces a prior citation (unos.org/data/transplant-trends dashboard) whose verbatim excerpt about "~10,000 families approached ... under significant time pressure" did not appear on that page and could not be verified as UNOS text.
Źródła: bezczynność
Rejestr twierdzeń
Każda liczba poniżej jest tym, co podało dane źródło — z dosłownym cytatem, na którym się oparliśmy, i sposobem, w jaki doszliśmy do naszej wartości. Kliknij dowolny link, żeby zweryfikować bezpośrednio.
1/2 źródeł niezależnie zweryfikowanych słowo w słowo z podanym źródłem
[1]American Journal of Transplantation — The instability of organ donation decisions by next-of-kin and factors that predict it
Recenzowane naukowo
Of 138 next-of-kin who refused donation, 37 (27%) said they would now consent, 89 (64%) would make the same decision, and 12 (9%) were unsure
Cytat
“"Of the 138 next-of-kin nondonors, 89 (64%) would make the same decision again, 37 (27%) would consent to donation and 12 (9%) were unsure."
”
Dane źródłowe z
2008-12-01
Dostęp
2026-06-30
Obliczenie
Rodrigue JR, Cornell DL, Howard RJ (2008), Am J Transplant 8(12):2661-7, PMID 18853951. US interview study of 285 next-of-kin (147 donors, 138 nondonors). Decision instability is the directly measured construct: among refusers, 37/138 = 27% would now consent if they could decide again. Used directly as the inaction-side regret_rate of 0.27. Refusers reverse their decision far more often than consenters (27% vs 4%), the inaction-dominates regret asymmetry. Replaces a prior citation (PMID 21902727, Jansen/van Leiden Dutch consent-rate study) that measured family CONSENT RATES, not refuser regret, and did not support the prior 28% figure.
[2]BMJ Open (PubMed Central) — Comparing organ donation decisions for next-of-kin versus the self: results of a national survey
Zweryfikowane
Recenzowane naukowo
68.1% willing to donate their own organs vs. only 51.8% willing to donate a relative's organs
Cytat
“"Although 68.1% of participants were willing to donate their own organs, only 51.8% were willing to donate a relative's organs."
”
Dane źródłowe z
2021-11-01
Dostęp
2026-06-30
Weryfikacja
Cytat niezależnie pobrany ponownie i potwierdzony słowo w słowo z podanym źródłem podczas naszego audytu ugruntowania.
Obliczenie
Liu et al. (2021), BMJ Open, Singapore national survey n=973 adults. Cross-sectional survey comparing hypothetical willingness to donate one's own organs versus a family member's: 68.1% own vs 51.8% relative. This willingness gap illustrates that next-of-kin systematically apply a higher bar to a relative's body than to their own -- a structural driver of refusal -- but the study measures stated intention, not post-decision regret, so it supplies corroborating context only, not a standalone regret rate. Corrected: removed a previously stated "16.1% would refuse a registered donor's wish" clause that does not appear in this paper.
Zastrzeżenia
Oba wskaźniki żalu pochodzą z jednego amerykańskiego badania wywiadowego (Rodrigue i in. 2008, N=285 najbliższych krewnych), które mierzyło niestabilność decyzji — czy krewny dokonałby tego samego wyboru, gdyby mógł zdecydować jeszcze raz — a nie za pomocą walidowanej skali żalu, więc liczby indeksują odwrócenie decyzji, bliski, ale nie identyczny konstrukt. Wyniki mogą się różnić w systemach opt-out (Hiszpania, Walia, Francja), gdzie donacja jest domyślną opcją prawną, a odmowa wymaga aktywnego wyboru. Wywiad następował raz po decyzji o donacji; to nie są wieloletnie podłużne trajektorie żalu, a asymetria (odmawiający odwracają decyzję znacznie częściej niż wyrażający zgodę) jest solidnym sygnałem, a nie precyzyjne odsetki. Decyzja jest często podejmowana pod ostrą presją czasu w szpitalu, z ograniczoną możliwością namysłu — kontekst proceduralny, który kształtuje żal niezależnie od merytorycznego wyboru. Dane UNOS i singapurska ankieta o gotowości dostarczają kontekstu skali i mechanizmu, ale nie samych wskaźników żalu.
