This paper argues that there is little difference between opt-in and opt-out organ donation systems for increasing donor numbers when used in isolation. Independently diverting to an opt-out system confers no obvious advantage and can harm efforts to bolster donations. Rather, it is essential to address barriers to organ donation on several levels along with a switch in system. Moreover, for many countries, it may be more beneficial to adequately capacitate the donation system already in place, rather than entertain a significant change with its attendant resource requirements. For decades, the international transplant community has been involved in vigorous debate as to the merits of moving from default opt-in systems to opt-out policies to grow organ donor numbers and better meet the ever-increasing demand for lifesaving transplants. Opt-out is certainly en vogue, with Wales, England and Nova Scotia recently switching over, Scotland due to become opt-out in March 2021 and Northern Ireland and Canada seriously considering a similar move. Thanks to several countries making the switch from opt-in to opt-out over the last 20– 30 years, there are sets of robust longitudinal data that aid in analysing the efficacy of donation systems. However, these data are often contradictory and largely inconclusive, suggesting other factors may be in play. This paper reviews some emerging trends in opt-in versus opt-out organ donation policies and considers recent data that elucidates some of the main contentions across each. Ethical frameworks underpinning donation systems, such as informed consent, trust and transparency, are discussed in detail. Substantial time is also devoted to opt-in vs opt-out systems in developing countries, which tend to be excluded from many analyses, and where the challenges faced are magnified by socio-economic constraints. This constitutes a major gap in recently published literature, as developing countries often lag far behind their developed counterparts in donor and transplant numbers.

South Africa is a country with two distinct health sectors, which are both characterised by inequalities. Within this context, patients with end stage renal disease face unique and sometimes impenetrable barriers to accessing dialysis. There are a number of reasons for this situation. These include: the South African government’s endorsement of discordant, unequal policies, which disadvantage the most vulnerable; a lack of robust national guidelines; and divisive rationing practices, which are ad hoc and place the burden of responsibility for rationing dialysis on the clinician. In this paper, we trace the socio-economic mechanisms of how we have come to be in this situation, and overlay this with a detailed examination of South African legislation. Finally, we make comprehensive practical recommendations for rectifying the situation, which include engagement with key stakeholders, public–private partnerships, and more equitable funding mechanisms.

The POPIA Code of Conduct for Research, as it is currently being considered, pertains to research conducted in South Africa, which, as part of the research process, uses personal information as defined under POPIA. This Discussion Document outlines the main areas relating to the processing of personal information for research purposes which the proposed Code will address, including what consent models would be permissible under POPIA; the issues in relation to genetic research and the processing of personal information contained in inherited characteristics; the use of information matching programmes by researchers; and the use of personal information obtained from social media platforms for research. With ongoing and wide consultation with the scientific community in South Africa and all relevant stakeholders, it is hoped that the Code will provide guidance in supporting the lawful and responsible use of personal information while conducting scientific research in South Africa. The purpose and scope of the Code of Conduct for Research are set out in the accompanying Commentary available at https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2021/10935

Background. Communication is essential to the transplant process, but it is challenging in South Africa (SA) because of the complexity of the country and the health system, the nature of transplantation as a technical procedure with inherent psychological considerations, and the large number of professionals involved. Transplant communication has not been explored in SA, and this study was the first to use health communication methods to generate empirical evidence relating to it. Objective. To explore communication in transplant settings in Gauteng Province, SA. Methods. Qualitative methods were used to collect data across six hospitals and transplant centres in Gauteng. State and private institutions were equally represented. Health professionals and transplant co-ordinators participated. Thematic analysis of data was undertaken. Results. Facilitators of interprofessional transplant communication included appreciation of its importance to good practice and cohesive individual transplant teams. Barriers to interprofessional communication were observed when individual teams had to come together in a multi-team, interdisciplinary environment, when interchange became aggressive, and when information was not passed on to other health professionals timeously. These barriers had implications for continuity of care and ethics, which could lead to moral distress. Conclusion. Transplantation in Gauteng is characterised by aspects of good teamwork, and the importance of effective communication is acknowledged. Transplantation also faces some challenges in terms of interprofessional communication. Recommendations for mitigating some of the gaps include integrating a health communication specialist into the transplant process, ‘knotworking’, the use of apology, and an advance warning text-message system for transplant professionals.

Introduction: South Africa is faced with very low deceased organ donor numbers. Often, sociocultural practices, which are thought to be fundamentally opposed to deceased organ donation, are hailed as the cause. However, other factors such as context, social perceptions, and clinical environment may play a role. Aim: The aim of this article is to present research that explored communication in organ transplant and identified barriers to organ donation decisions in a province of South Africa. Methods: Qualitative methods were used. Thirty semistructured interviews with transplant professionals and 2 focus groups with transplant coordinators took place across 6 health institutions in Gauteng Province. Results: Barriers that may prevent transplant professionals from referring potential donors were identified: The wider public and transplant professionals may be suspicious of biomedicine and have a perception that people could be killed for their organs. Organ donation was sometimes framed as “murder,” “killing,” or a “bunch of vultures.” Doctors may be unwilling to refer brain-dead patients, as this was seen as failing in one’s professional duty to cure the patient. The role of sociocultural practices was inconclusive, with the sample divided based on the extent of their influence. Conclusion: Low donor numbers may be a manifestation of barriers to referral in the clinical setting. These barriers interplay in a context of suspicion and are framed by a clinical transplant discourse that is sometimes loaded with negative connotation. Sociocultural practices are influential, but they may not be the overriding cause of low donor numbers.