Showing posts with label Germany. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Germany. Show all posts

Friday, November 23, 2018

Some movement towards kidney exchange in Germany

Axel Ockenfels writes:

"On 9 November 2018, members of the parliament of the German liberal party FDP submitted a petition ("Chancen von altruistischen Organlebendspenden nutzen – Spenden erleichtern") to ask the German government to draft a law that makes kidney exchange, non-directed altruistic kidney donations into a pool and, under certain circumstances, directed kidney donations to strangers possible in Germany": 
Chancen von altruistischen Organlebendspenden nutzen – Spenden erleichtern
"Make use of the opportunities of altruistic organ donation - make donations easier"

It calls for specific amendments to remove the current legal restrictions on kidney exchange.

German market design economists have been at the forefront of efforts to change the transplant law in this and other respects.

Here's an earlier post on the subject, whose links contain links to still earlier ones--maybe this series will converge soon in a way that reverses the decline in transplantation in Germany:

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

Obstacles to kidney exchange in Germany

An op-ed in yesterday's Handelsblatt Global (in English) proposes that kidney exchange should be allowed in Germany:
Germany should allow donating organs to strangers
by Fabian Kurz and Fred Roeder, July 2, 2018

An earlier brief discussion/blog post (in German) with some interesting links describes some of the current obstacles to kidney exchange in Germany:

Nieren-Tausch kann Leben retten (Kidney exchange can save lives)
von Alexander Fink & Fabian Kurz, 20. Juni 2018

Here's the German Transplant Act.

Here's a ruling of the German Federal Social Court, confirming the effective ban on kidney exchange.

Here's a 2005 news story about two patient-donor pairs who were allowed to engage in a kidney exchange after arguing that they had established a sufficient relationship with each other, to fit the requirement of the law that transplants can only be received from close relations, i.e. immediate family, or a "special personal bond" .
Nieren-Tausch soll Leben retten (Kidney exchange is supposed to save lives)
***********

Some earlier discussions and links:

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Sunday, January 21, 2018

The number of organ donors in Germany has fallen to its lowest level in 20 years.


Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Organ donation in Germany

Organ donation in Germany is declining, from an already low rate.

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Organ donation in Germany

Organ donation in Germany is declining, from an already low rate.
 Die WirtschaftsWoche has the story in their February 19 issue:

Die Zahl der Organspenden in Deutschland geht immer stärker zurück. Ökonomen machen dafür auch falsche Anreize verantwortlich. Sie schlagen Modelle vor, um mehr Menschen fürs Spenden zu gewinnen.

Google translate: "This could lead to incentives for organ donation
The number of organ donations in Germany is decreasing more and more. Economists blame it for wrong incentives. They suggest models to get more people to donate."

The article refers in part to this lab experiment investigating giving registered organ donors priority should they need an organ:

Organ donation in the lab: Preferences and votes on the priority rule
by Annika Herr and Hans-Theo Normann
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
Volume 131, Part B, November 2016, Pages 139-149

"Abstract: An allocation rule that prioritizes registered donors increases the willingness to register for organ donation, as laboratory experiments show. In public opinion, however, this priority rule faces repugnance. We explore the discrepancy by implementing a vote on the rule in a donation experiment, and we also elicit opinion poll-like views. We find that two-thirds of the participants voted for the priority rule in the experiment. When asked about real-world implementation, participants of the donation experiment were more likely to support the rule than non-participants. We further confirm previous research in that the priority rule increases donation rates. Beyond that, we find medical school students donate more often than participants from other fields."

The newspaper article also quotes German transplant officials as saying that this would be an unethical organ market, and that it would open the door to illegal black markets...

Sunday, January 21, 2018

The number of organ donors in Germany has fallen to its lowest level in 20 years.

Rosemarie Nagel draws my attention to this article in Der Spiegel on transplantation in Germany:



Transplantation
Wieso werden in Deutschland so wenige Organe gespendet?
Die Zahl der Organspender in Deutschland ist auf den niedrigsten Stand seit 20 Jahren gesunken. Woran liegt das? Und wie kann man einer Spende zustimmen - oder sie ablehnen? Der Überblick.

Google translate renders it as: Transplantation
Why are donated so few institutions in Germany?
The number of organ donors in Germany has fallen to its lowest level in 20 years. Why is that? And how can you agree to a donation - or reject it? The overview.

Monday, January 8, 2018

Medical school admissions in Germany

Sven Seuken and Stephanie Wang point me to these stories:

Germany: Selection process for medical students deemed partly unconstitutional
Germany's top court has ruled that the current method universities use to allocate places for medical studies violates equal opportunity laws. The federal government is to regulate the criteria used for offering places.

"Under the current system, German universities are able to apply what was known as the 20-20-60 rule for prospective medical students. Twenty percent of places are allocated to students with the very best overall marks in the final school exams, a selection process generally referred to as the numerus clausus. Often students with marks as high as 1.2 (the equivalent of a 3.9 GPA in the US) would not be guaranteed a place.

"A further 20 percent of places go to students who had been previously been placed on a waiting list.

"The remaining 60 percent are chosen based on various criteria determined by the individual universities — a system the judges found to be unfair.

"Three universities — Aachen, Bonn and Düsseldorf — base their selection only on the average school grades, while a number of other institutions make prospective students have an interview. Lawmakers must now work to lift these discrepancies.

"Applicants who are not accepted in the first selection round can be put on a waiting list for up to seven years, according to some estimates. The court also ordered officials to work on shortening those waiting times.


"The claim was taken to court by two applicants who had achieved a grade of 2.0 and 2.6, but hadn't been admitted to medical school after being on the waiting list for eight and six years respectively. "
**************

Here's a more detailed article in German
Medizin-NC vor dem Bundesverfassungsgericht
Sie können doch nicht warten, bis alle grau sind
(G Translate: Medical NC in the Federal Constitutional Court
You can not wait until all are gray)

Sven Seuken writes:
"The judges criticized, in particular:
@1: even if your GPA is high enough to get into some school, because of the limitation to a list length of 6 (where you rank universities), you might get unlucky and get into no school. That's unfair.

@2: If you get into a school "by waiting long enough", your waiting time to get a spot at a university might be 7.5 years. That is considered "dysfunctional". However, I have no idea if they have a better system in mind.

@3: Some universities only use the GPA as their selection criterion for category 3. The judges criticized this, and said that at least one more criterion must be used."

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Germany en route to annul historical convictions of gay men

Deutsche Welle has the story:
Germany set to annul historical convictions of gay men

"German men convicted on the basis of a 19th century law criminalizing homosexuality now have a chance at getting late justice in the wake of an expert study commissioned by the Anti-Discrimination Agency.
Their supposed crime was the same during the Nazi era as it was in the federal republic founded in 1949: They loved other men and had homosexual sex.
Those who were caught engaging in homosexual acts or who were denounced as homosexuals were spared no mercy by the state. The law containing the infamous Paragraph 175 outlawing sexual relations between men dates back to the 19th century, but it was applied especially zealously under Nazi rule. The law remained intact even after 1945. Homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969, but Paragraph 175 was not abolished until 1994.
By that time, more than 50,000 men had been convicted for being gay, something that "violated the very core of their human dignity," said Christine Lüders, the head of the government's Anti-Discrimination Authority, in Berlin on Wednesday. At her side was Martin Burgi of the Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich. The legal expert has compiled a study on the rehabilitation of homosexuals convicted under the law. He's confident it can be done, saying there's no legal barrier to rehabilitating the men.
...
"For laypeople, it's hard to understand why men convicted under Paragraph 175 by the Nazis have been rehabilitated since 2002, while verdicts handed down in the post-war era are still being upheld. The logic is as appalling as it is banal: The Nazi dictatorship was declared an unjust state; the Federal Republic of Germany, on the other hand, is based on democratic principles. That means the men who had the misfortune to be found guilty of homosexuality in the post-war era still have criminal records.
But Burgi says that "collective rehabilitation" of those affected by the law can be achieved with the help of social and democratic principles."

*************

Here's the Associated Press story from ABC: German Cabinet OKs plan to annul homosexuality convictions

"Germany's Cabinet on Wednesday approved a bill that would annul the convictions of thousands of gay men under a law criminalizing homosexuality that was applied zealously in post-World War II West Germany.

The decision also clears the way for compensation for those still alive who were convicted under the so-called Paragraph 175 outlawing sexual relations between men.

The legislation was introduced in the 19th century, toughened under Nazi rule and retained in that form by West Germany, which convicted some 50,000 men between 1949 and 1969.

Homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969 but the legislation wasn't taken off the books entirely until 1994.

The bill approved Wednesday by Chancellor Angela Merkel's Cabinet of conservatives and center-left Social Democrats still requires parliamentary approval. "
********

This echoes recent events in England: see my earlier post on that

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Who Gets What and Why shortlisted for German Business Book Prize (to be announced in October)

Deutscher Wirtschaftsbuchpreis 2016: Die Shortlist

Google translates: Dusseldorf (ots) - The finalists of the German Business Book Prize have been announced: Ten books have made ​​it to the final round for 2016th A distinguished jury selected this year for the tenth time from the titles shortlisted the best business book of the year. The Executive Jury has Gabor Steingart, publisher of Handelsblatt. The prize will be awarded on 21 October at the Frankfurt Book Fair.
The German Business Book Award is themed "Understanding Business".Handelsblatt, the Frankfurt Book Fair and the investment bank Goldman Sachs award the prize to promote the economic literature. The three partners aim to emphasize the distinction the importance of economy section in mediating economic relationships. The selection criteria therefore include not only innovative agenda-setting or a new perspective and understanding and readability. The prize is endowed with 10,000 euros.
The ten books shortlisted provides Handelsblatt in the weeks prior to the literature page in the weekend edition. All other information on the award, the jury and of the initiators can be found at: www.deutscher-wirtschaftsbuchpreis.de

Die Shortlist 2016:
George Akerlof, Robert Shiller: Phishing for Fools. Manipulation und Täuschung in der freien Marktwirtschaft. Econ, Berlin 2016, 416 Seiten, 24 Euro
Adam Grant: Nonkonformisten. Warum Originalität die Welt bewegt. Droemer, München 2016, 384 Seiten, 22,99 Euro
Christoph Keese: Silicon Germany. Wie wir die digitale Transformation schaffen. Knaus, München 2016, 368 Seiten, 22,99 Euro
Paul Mason: Postkapitalismus. Grundrisse einer kommenden Ökonomie. Suhrkamp, Berlin 2016, 430 Seiten, 26,95 Euro
Alec Ross: Die Wirtschaftswelt der Zukunft. Plassen, Kulmbach 2016, 400 Seiten, 24,99 Euro
Alvin E. Roth: Wer kriegt was und warum? Bildung, Jobs und Partnerwahl: Wie Märkte funktionieren. Siedler, München 2016, 304 Seiten, 24,99 Euro
Wolfgang Schäuble (und Michel Sapin): Anders gemeinsam (im Gespräch mit Ulrich Wickert). Hoffmann und Campe, Hamburg 2016, 256 Seiten, 22 Euro
Mark C. Schneider: Volkswagen. Eine deutsche Geschichte. Berlin Verlag, 2016, 304 Seiten, 22 Euro
Hans-Werner Sinn: Der Euro. Von der Friedensidee zum Zankapfel. Hanser, München 2016, 560 Seiten, 24,90 Euro
Sahra Wagenknecht: Reichtum ohne Gier. Wie wir uns vor dem Kapitalismus retten. Campus, Frankfurt 2016, 292 Seiten, 19,95 Euro

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Kidney exchange and school choice in German (two interviews)

In Stern, in German, Bernhard Albrecht talks to  me about Tauschbörse für Organe, "Exchange of Organs."

Offering kidney, seeking kidney
Filesharing are in vogue. Some exchange Sammelbildchen, other clothing. The Nobel laureate economist Alvin Roth has developed a system to swap bodies. Who could benefit?


And today in Berliner Zeitung,  Nobel Prize winner Alvin Roth about the chaos at school choice and organ donation  (Nobelpreisträger Alvin Roth über das Chaos bei Schulwahl und Organspende)

(The latter interview comes without a byline, but I believe the interviewer was by the political correspondent Tobias Peter.)


Sunday, May 1, 2016

Interview about market design in the economics newspaper Wirtschafts Woche (in German)

I was interviewed about market design by Hans Jakob Ginsburg for Wirtschafts Woche
"Märkte gestalten heißt nicht Märkte abschaffen"

Saturday, April 16, 2016

More press (and radio) from my visit to Germany last month, in German

Here's a recent German review of the German translation of my book which comes with an audio link, also in German, on the program  DeutchlandRadio Kultur:
Alvin E. Roth: "Wer kriegt was und warum?"
Wenn der Mensch sich selbst zu Markte trägt
Von Wolfgang Schneider



Alvin E. Roth: Wer kriegt was und warum? Bildung, Jobs und Partnerwahl
Aus dem amerikanischen Englisch von Thorsten Schmidt. 
Siedler Verlag. München 2016. 304 Seiten, 24,99 Euro

The audio link also is here: http://www.ardmediathek.de/radio/Lesart-das-Literaturmagazin-Deutschl/Alvin-E-Roth-Wer-kriegt-was-und-warum/Deutschlandradio-Kultur/Audio-Podcast?bcastId=21541016&documentId=34550182


***********
Here's Austrian radio:  Wer kriegt was und warum?
Von Wirtschaftsnobelpreisträger Alvin Roth

There's a link to the audio there, on which you can hear the interview in German (with voiceover for my parts...)









*********************
Here's an  account, published nearer the time of my visit, of an interview in Cologne, by the Aueddeutsche Zeitung

18. März 2016, 19:00 Uhr
Matching Point--Mensch und Markt
Der Nobelpreisträger Alvin E. Roth erforscht, wie Märkte funktionieren und wie sie das ganze Leben prägen.
Google Translate renders the headline this way:
[March 18, 2016,
Matching Point--Man and market
The Nobel Prize winner Alvin E. Roth examines how markets work and how they shape the whole life.]

Friday, March 25, 2016

Who Gets What and Why at the European School for Management and Technology in Berlin--video

Here's a video of a public lecture followed by a discussion (about half an hour each) about my book Who Gets What and Why, which just came out in German.   The location of the lecture was once an East German government building where the head of state had his office, and is now a business school, the European School for Management and Technology.  I was introduced by Gerhard Caspar, the head of the American Academy in Berlin and former president of Stanford. (My talk begins about minute 11:30 of the video, the discussion begins about minute 41, with Christoph von Marschall, Managing Editor of the newspaper Der Tagesspiegel, which touches on market designers in Germany, the legal barriers to kidney exchange there, and refugee resettlement.)


Thursday, March 17, 2016

Transplants in Germany, further discussion of changing the transplant law, in Der Tagesspiegel

My op-ed in Der  Tagesspiegel yesterday on changing the German transplant law has drawn some prompt further comment in today's paper (as near as I can tell from Google Translate).

Here's the new commentary (English courtesy of GT):

Ärzte und Politiker für mehr Lebendspenden


VON RAINER WORATSCHKA


[Organ transplant
physicians and politicians for more living donations German reservations "no longer fit into the time", criticizing physicians. The exchange between unacquainted pairs should be allowed.]

"The demand of the American Nobel Prize winner Alvin Roth, to facilitate in Germany living donation of organs and to amend the Transplantation Act accordingly, has met with doctors and politicians on consent.

The requirement that living donation - this question come kidney or parts of the liver - may come only from the direct family environment, are too strict, the economists had in Tagesspiegel criticizes. As in other European countries and the United States would also in Germany more distant relatives, friends or colleagues may donate writes Roth. In addition, an exchange between unacquainted pairs should be allowed (cross-donation, crossover Donation) at incompatible donor organs."
***************

Here are my two earlier posts on the subject, with links to my earlier op-ed and the one by Axel Ockenfels and Thomas Gutmann

German organ transplant law should be amended or reinterpreted to allow kidney exchange: my op-ed in Der Tagesspiegel

During my recent visit to Germany, I spoke with a number of people about the fact that the German transplant law effectively outlaws kidney exchange.  I was invited to write an op-ed on the subject for the German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel, and it has just appeared:


Normally at this point I would use Google Translate to give a sense of the article, but in this case, since I wrote the op-ed in English, I can give you the original:

German organ transplant law should be amended or reinterpreted to allow kidney exchange
By Alvin E. Roth[i]
Kidney failure is epidemic around the world, and a shortage of organs for transplantation condemns many patients to dialysis, and early death. 

Most transplantable organs come from deceased donors, and there aren’t enough to fill the need. But because healthy people have two kidneys and can remain healthy with one, a healthy person can donate a kidney to a sick person.  A living-donor kidney works better than a deceased-donor kidney.
In the U.S. we now have around as many living donors as deceased donors (although we still have more deceased-donor transplants, since a deceased donor donates both kidneys).

But living donation isn’t always possible, even when a willing donor is available, because a kidney must be well-matched to its recipient. Often the life-saving gift cannot be given, because the donor’s kidney is incompatible with the patient. (It is now sometimes possible to successfully transplant an incompatible kidney, but, like a deceased-donor kidney, this does not keep the patient as healthy for as long as would a compatible living-donor kidney.)

In the U.S., there is a way for incompatible patient-donor pairs to help each other, through what we call kidney exchange, or kidney paired-donation. In its simplest form, two incompatible patient-donor pairs are identified by their doctors such that each patient is compatible with the kidney of the other patient’s donor. Then four surgeries are performed, two nephrectomies and two transplants, so that each donor gives a kidney and each patient receives a compatible kidney. Kidney exchange has become a standard form of transplantation in the U.S., and has saved thousands of lives. (This is one of the “matching” markets I helped design, and wrote about in my recently translated book, Wer kriegt was - und warum?.)

Notice that no money changes hands in this paired donation. It is just an exchange of gifts between two patient-donor pairs, which allows each donor to save a life and see his intended recipient restored to good health.
Laws around the world prohibit buying a kidney for transplantation, because of fear that allowing organs to be sold would exploit the poor and vulnerable. (The single exception is Iran, which has a monetary market for kidneys.) But German transplant law  imposes a severe further restriction: a patient may receive a living-donor kidney only from a member of his or her immediate family. This means that, unless a judge intervenes, kidney exchanges are illegal in Germany. (This law also restricts the number of direct living donations in Germany compared to countries like the U.S., in which uncles, cousins, friends, colleagues, members of the same church, etc., are often living donors.)

I surmise that the reason for this strict limitation in German law is to remove any possibility that a kidney being transplanted has been purchased rather than freely given. But if when you want to give a kidney to your brother there is no suspicion that you are a paid organ-seller, you should remain above suspicion even if your kidney is incompatible with your brother. Kidney exchange allows you to give a kidney and save a life, and have your brother’s life saved. Kidney paired donation is a mutually beneficial exchange of life-saving gifts, not a commercial transaction.

The U.S. law that includes the prohibition on organ sales is the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984.  When American surgeons explored kidney exchange in the first decade of this century, it wasn’t initially clear what its legal status might be, but in 2007 Congress passed an amendment to the NOTA making kidney exchange explicitly legal.  Kidney exchange is legal elsewhere in Europe, and is well developed in the Netherlands and Britain. A similar amendment to the German law, or even instructions to judges that kidney exchanges should be allowed after being examined, could save the lives of many patients in Germany, without opening to door to commercial transactions in body parts.




[i] Alvin Roth, a professor of economics at Stanford University, shared the 2012 Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on market design. His recent book about markets has just appeared in German translation, Wer kriegt was - und warum?: Bildung, Jobs und Partnerwahl: Wie Märktefunktionieren

Monday, March 14, 2016

Promoting kidney exchange in Germany: Axel Ockenfels and Thomas Gutmann

In Germany, kidney exchange isn't legal (German law only permits a patient to receive an organ from a member of his immediate family). Here's an op-ed saying that should change, by Axel Ockenfels and Thomas Gutmann in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung:

Nierentausch in Zeiten des Mangels (kidney exchange in times of shortage)

Google translate makes it pretty clear.


Friday, March 11, 2016

German press coverage

One of the themes that has struck a chord with the German press during my visit is that refugee resettlement is a matching problem:

Handelsblatt „Die Flüchtlingskrise ist ein Matching-Problem“ ("The refugee crisis is a matching problem")

Die Welt "Staaten sollten Gebote für Flüchtlinge abgeben"
From google translate:
From because of cooler economist - Alvin Roth has indeed studied hard subjects with mathematics and computer science. But he loves not only the numbers, but also the people. It shows the same. He greeted with a winning smile, leaving a to an exciting conversation about refugees and donor kidneys, financial markets and future presidents.
The World: Some economists want to apply to the distribution of refugees in Europe your design markets. Is this a good idea?
Alvin Roth: Essentially, yes. The distribution of refugees is a so-called matching market - on the right pairing it depends, in this case of people and place. The people themselves have preferences where they want to live. At the same time they should be able to be easily integrated into the economy. For that we should allow an orderly exchange of information. According Dublin procedure an applicant must his application but ask in the country where he first arrived. This does not add up.



Lit.Cologne photo:

Saturday, January 9, 2016

Coming soon in German: Wer kriegt was - und warum? Bildung, Jobs und Partnerwahl: Wie Märkte funktionieren

The German translation of my book, Who Gets What -- and Why? is coming out in March.


 The subtitle of the book changes with each translation.  In the U.S. edition, the subtitle is The New Economics of Matchmaking and Market Design.

In the U.K. edition it is The Hidden World of Matchmaking and Market Design.
Google translate renders the German subtitle , Bildung, Jobs und Partnerwahl: Wie Märkte funktionieren, as "Education, Jobs and mate selection: Markets Work"

Monday, November 9, 2015

Assisted suicide legislation is clarified in Germany (family members won't be prosecuted, but professional assistance is forbidden)

Timo Mennle writes  from Zurich:

"the German parliament ("Bundestag") passed a new law concerning assisted suicide. The law generally forbids aiding others in their own suicide. However, it has two important points: first, it imposes a penalty of up to 3 years imprisonment if assistance for suicide is provided in a "business-like" fashion. This explicitly rules out the provision of such services for profit but also the professional provision by organization. Second, relatives and persons with a close relationships are exempt from punishment if they assist in a suicide out
of “altruistic motives.” The same is true for medical doctors in case of
decisions on a by-case basis. The new law closes a legal gap that previously left medial doctors and relatives in an ambiguous situation.

The express purpose of the new law is to "prevent a habituation of society to assisted suicide and to prevent the pressuring of old or sick persons into killing themselves." The vote in parliament was taken anonymously; the usual obligation of the members of parliament to vote according to their respective party's recommendation was explicitly suspended and they were asked to follow only their own conscience in this decision.

This and more information can be found in the following news articles
(unfortunately in German):

An English article about the topic can be found here:

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Axel Ockenfels is celebrated in the German press as an inderdisciplinary market designer

The Sueddeutsche Zeitung celebrates Axel Ockenfels as one of 24 German economists who matter.

Die Mauer muss weg--Axel Ockenfels hat die Grenzen seines Fachs nie akzeptiert. Deshalb überschreitet er sie in seiner Arbeit konsequent.

Google translate:
"The Wall must fall--Axel Ockenfels has never accepted the boundaries of his craft. Therefore, it exceeds them consistently in his work."


Sunday, February 1, 2015

Continued troubles in German organ donation and transplantation

From Spiegel online: Vor Organspende: Schwerer Fehler bei Hirntod-Diagnose  (Before Organ Donation: A fatal error occurred brain death diagnosis) translation via Google Translate

The article goes on to speak of a transplant that was canceled (at some point) because of "ambiguity with regard to the diagnosis of brain death and its documentation".


HT: Rosemarie Nagel

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Matching German lawyers to their first jobs

There's a lot of interesting market design problems being studied in Germany these days.  Here's a recent working paper from the Department of Economics at Humboldt University in Berlin:

Matching with Waiting Times: The German Entry-Level Labour Market for Lawyers by Philipp D. Dimakopoulos and C.-Philipp Heller