Perceptions of Efficacy, Morality, and Politics of Potential Cadaveric Organ– Transplantation Reforms

In this empirical research project, we sought to explore the political feasibility of potential policy reforms to address the shortage of cadaveric organs for transplantation in America. We recruited 730 human subjects from an online population and assigned them to writing tasks that experimentally manipulated the salience of moral and posthumous risks. Subjects read ninetyfive-word descriptions of six proposed policy reforms, rating efficacy, morality, and overall support for each. We created weighted estimates of the overall potential support for each reform (WEOS), correcting for the skew in our study population to very roughly approximate the political affiliations of the American public. Our data suggest that cultural cognition and perceptions of risk do not drive policy choices about organ reform. Qualitatively, the writing tasks revealed some ambivalence about the risk of having life-saving organs harvested without consent, and they revealed tangible frustration about the risk of a loved one dying for lack of a needed organ. We found that Democrats were generally more supportive of reforms, whereas Independents were less supportive, and Republicans were middling in