Public acceptance of routine medical procedures is nearly universal, but controversy over dramatic or invasive procedures like transplants is common.
Objectives
To assess the distributions and organization of public opinion on organ transplant and to discover the magnitude of the direct and indirect impacts of religion, scientific knowledge, and acceptance of evolution on individuals' support for organ transplant.
Participants
A representative sample (N = 2069) of the US adult, English-speaking population in 2009.
Intervention
Participants were administered the International Social Science Survey/USA 2009.
Results
Organ transplants were warmly endorsed by most Americans in 2009, as earlier, but support is not universal. Confirmatory factor analysis shows that Americans' opinions on heart, kidney, and pancreas transplants all reflect the same underlying attitude toward major organ transplants. Structural equation modeling shows that scientific knowledge is the most important influence on these attitudes, with more knowledgeable persons being more supportive. Acceptance of the theory of evolution is the second most important factor, also associated with greater support for transplant. Growing up in a church-going family encourages people to support organ transplant, even after adjusting for other influences. Otherwise denomination and religious belief have only small indirect influences. Demographic differences are small.
Conclusions
These results provide clues about future trends. A religious revival, were it to occur, would not be likely to alter support for transplants. If public knowledge of science continues to increase, or acceptance of the theory of evolution grows, support for transplant will most likely increase.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HowardRJCornellDLCochranL. History of deceased organ donation, transplantation, and organ procurement organizations. Prog Transplant.2012;22(1):6–16.
2.
KasermanDL. Fifty years of organ transplants: The success and the failures. Issues Law Med.2007;23(1):45–69.
3.
Institute of Medicine. Organ Donation: Opportunities For Action.Washington, DC: National Academies of Science Press;2007.
4.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Healthcare Systems Bureau. 2012 National Survey of Organ Donation Attitudes and Behaviors.Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2013.
5.
FeeleyTH. College students' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding organ donation: An integrated review of the literature. J Appl Soc Psychol.2007;37(2):243–271.
6.
GilliganCSanson-FisherRWTuronH. The organ donation conundrum. Prog Transplant.2012;22(3):312–316.
7.
PeltierJWD'AlessandroAMDahlAJFeeleyTH. A sequential decision framework for increasing college students' support for organ donation and organ donor registration. Prog Transplant.2012;22(3):323–332.
8.
WakefieldCEWattsKJHomewoodJMeiserBSiminoffLA. Attitudes towards organ donation and donor behavior: A review of the international literature. Prog Transplant.2010; 20(4):380–391.
9.
WakefieldCEReidJHomewoodJ. Religious and ethnic influences on willingness to donate organs and donor behavior: An Australian perspective. Prog Transplant.2011;21(2):161–168.
10.
D'AlessandroAMPeltierJWDahlAJ. The impact of social, cognitive and attitudinal dimensions on college students' support for organ donation. Am J Transplant.2012;12(1):152–161.
11.
HydeMKWhiteKM. Student and community perceptions about organ donors, non-donors and transplant recipients. J Community Appl Soc Psychol.2009;19(2):125–114.
12.
PiliavinJASieglE. Health benefits of volunteering in the Wisconsin longitudinal study. J Health Soc Behav.2007;48(4): 450–464.
13.
EvansMDRKelleyJ. Charity work: International differences and Australian trends in volunteering. Australian Economy and Society 2002: Religion, Morality, and Public Policy in International Perspective, 1984–2002.Sydney, Australia: Federation Press; 2004:269–279.
14.
BrossardDNisbetMC. Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. Int J Public Opin Res.2007; 19(1):24–52.
15.
KelleyJ. Australian Support for Genetic-Engineering. Search.1995;28(5):141–144.
16.
LeggeJSDurantRF. Public opinion, risk assessment, and biotechnology: Lessons from attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European union. Rev Policy Res.2010;27(1):59–76.
17.
EvansMDKelleyJZanjaniED. The ethics of gene therapy and abortion: Public opinion. Fetal Diagn Ther.2005;20(3): 223–234.
18.
HoSSBrossardDScheufeleDA. Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. Int J Public Opin Res.2008;20(2):171–192.
19.
KelleyJ. Australians' views about the theory of evolution. Austral Soc Monitor.1999;2:114–119.
20.
PetersonA. The Body in Question: A Socio-Cultural Approach.London, United Kingdom: Routledge; 2007.
21.
AlwinDFHauserRM. The decomposition of effects in path analysis. Am Sociol Rev.1975;40(1):37–47.
22.
EvansMDRKelleyJ. Australian Economy and Society 2002: Religion, Morality and Public Policy in International Perspective 1984–2002.Sydney, Australia: Federation Press; 2004.
23.
EvansMDZanjaniEDKelleyJ. Strong public support for treatment and research using fetal tissue, particularly among those accepting the scientific world-view. J Hematother Stem Cell Res.2002;11(4):711–717.
24.
CouperMPMillerPV. Web survey methods: Introduction. Public Opin Q.2008;72(5):831–835.
25.
KreuterFPresserSTourangeauR. Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and web surveys. The effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opin Q.2008;72(5):847–865.
26.
ToepoelVVisCDasMvan SoestA. Design of web questionnaires: An information-processing perspective for the effect of response categories. Sociol Methods Res.2009;37(3): 371–392.
27.
CallegaroMDiSograC. Computing response metrics for online panels. Public Opin Q.2008;72(5):1008–1032.
28.
KelleyJEvansMDR. Public Opinion on the Ethics of Emerging Biotechnologies: Proposal to the Great Basin Foundation for Biomedical Research.Reno, NV: International Survey Center; 2009.
29.
SteenslandBParkJZRegnerusMDRobinsonLDWilcoxWBWoodberryRD. The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces.2000; 79(1):291–318.
30.
EvansMDRKelleyJ. Religious belief in Australia. Australian Economy and Society 2002: Religion, Morality, and Public Policy in International Perspective, 1984–2002.Sydney, Australia: Federation Press; 2004:27–41.
31.
EvansMDRKelleyJ. US attitudes towards human embryonic stem cell research. Nat Biotechnol.2011;29(6):484–488.
32.
KelleyJEvansMDR. Test-retest reliability estimates for Australian survey data: IsssA results. Austral Soc Monitor.2004; 7(2):15–16.
33.
WagnerTRManolisC. The fear associated with blood and organ donation: An explication of fright and anxiety. Prog Transplant.2012;22(2):200–206.
34.
KelleyJ. History, causal chains and careers: A reply. Am Sociol Rev.1973;38(6):791–796.
35.
BollenKA. Structural Equations With Latent Variables.New York, NY: Wiley; 1989.
PlutzerEBerkmanM. Trends: Evolution, creationism, and the teaching of human origins in schools. Public Opin Q.2008;72(3):540–553.
42.
PiliavinJA. Why do they give the gift of life? A review of research on blood donors since 1977. Transfusion.1990;30(5): 444–459.
43.
EvansMDRKelleyJ. Charity work: International differences and Australian trends. Austral Soc Monitor.2000;3:15–23.
44.
PlagnolACHuppertFA. Happy to help? Exploring the factors associated with variations in rates of volunteering across Europe. Soc Indic Res.2010;97(2):157–176.
