The Waiting Game: How States Can Solve the Organ-Donation Crisis

Thousands of patients in the United States live in limbo every day waiting for a lifesaving organ transplant, and the gap between the number of people who need a transplant and the number of available organs widens every year. Every state currently allows individuals to unilaterally indicate their intent to donate their organs upon death, but in practice, family members are frequently allowed to override the express intentions of decedents. In addition, the current U.S. opt-in system fails to reach its full potential because many eligible decedents never express their desires to become or not to become organ donors, and family members refuse to consent to donation or cannot be contacted in time. This Note argues that states should again take the lead in organ- donation regulation to solve the organ-shortage crisis and proposes a twofold solution for states to adopt. First, states should switch to a presumed-consent, or opt-out, model. Second, states should implement a monitoring and enforcement mechanism through which state attorneys general and state health departments enforce first-person authorization. Organ procurement organizations should be required to adopt bylaws requiring their strict compliance with decedents\u27 wishes, and a failure to do so would give state attorneys general grounds to sue for breach of 501(c)(3) status obligations. The result would be to increase the supply of viable organs for transplant by interpreting an individual\u27s failure to opt out as a desire to donate and to enforce this choice by not allowing anyone to override it

COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons for spatial development

Background and aims of this position paper: Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, it has become ever clearer that it poses an enormous challenge for society. The lockdown imposed on large parts of public life, which hit all social groups and institutions relatively abruptly with a wide range of impacts, as well as the measures adopted subsequently have resulted in radical changes in our living conditions. In some cases, the crisis has acted as an accelerator of trends affecting processes that were already ongoing: the digitalisation of communications and educational processes, the growth in working from home and mobile working arrangements, the expansion of online retail, changes in travel behaviour (in favour of cars and bicycles), and the establishment of regional service networks. At the same time, there has been a braking effect on sectors such as long-distance travel, global trade, trade fairs and cultural events, as well as on progress towards gender equality in the division of labour for household responsibilities and childcare. Socio-spatial, infrastructural, economic and ecological effects are becoming increasingly apparent. For those involved in spatial development and spatial planning, urgent questions arise not only about the weaknesses that have become apparent in our spatial uses in terms of infrastructure and public service provision, the economy and ecology, and in our ways of life in terms of housing and the supply of goods and services, but also about what opportunities have emerged for sustainable and self-determined lifestyles. What conclusions for anticipatory and preventive planning can be drawn from these (provisional) findings? Using a critical, multidisciplinary and integrative examination of the spatially-relevant effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper establishes connections between the crisis management of today and crisis preparedness concepts for potential future pandemics. Building on that, it proposes corresponding recommended actions. These actions relate not only to insights for medium-term space-related crisis management but also to conclusions on long-term strategic challenges for spatial development in view of pandemics to be expected in the future. For this position paper, the 'Pandemic and Spatial Development' Ad hoc Working Group at the ARL - Academy for Territorial Development in the Leibniz Association has compiled interdisciplinary perspectives from spatial development and spatial planning, public health services, epidemiology, economics and social sciences, and has condensed them into transdisciplinary recommendations for action. These recommendations are directed at the various action levels for spatial development and spatial planning

SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie: Was lernen wir daraus für die Raumentwicklung?

[Veranlassung und Ziele des Positionspapiers] Seit Beginn der "Corona-Krise"/SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie wird immer deutlicher, dass es sich hierbei um eine gesellschaftliche Herausforderung größten Ausmaßes handelt. Der sog. Lockdown weiter Teile des öffentlichen Lebens, der relativ unvermittelt alle sozialen Gruppen und Institutionen mit den unterschiedlichsten Konsequenzen traf, und die darauf aufbauenden Maßnahmen stellen eine radikale Veränderung unserer Lebensumstände dar. Die Krise ist zumindest in Teilen zu einem großen Trendverstärker für bereits ablaufende Prozesse geworden: bei der Digitalisierung von Kommunikations- und Lernprozessen, der Zunahme an Homeoffice/mobilem Arbeiten, der Ausweitung von Onlinehandel, Veränderungen im Mobilitätsverhalten (zugunsten Pkw und Fahrrad) und regionaler Vernetzung der Leistungserbringung. Gleichzeitig wurden Entwicklungen wie Fernreisen, globaler Handel, Messen und Kultur, aber auch eine geschlechtergerechtere Arbeitsteilung mit Blick auf Haushalt und Kinderbetreuung ausgebremst. Sozialräumliche, infrastrukturelle sowie ökonomische und ökologische Auswirkungen zeichnen sich offener ab. Es stellt sich für die Akteure der Raumentwicklung und Raumplanung dringlich die Frage, welche Schwächen unserer Raumnutzungen im Hinblick auf Infrastrukturen und Daseinsvorsorge, Ökonomie und Ökologie, unserer Lebensmodelle mit Wohnen und Versorgung - aber auch welche Chancen für nachhaltige und selbstbestimmte Lebensweisen - offensichtlich geworden sind. Was ergibt sich aus diesen (vorläufigen) Erkenntnissen für eine vorausschauende und vorsorgende Planung? Auf Grundlage einer kritischen, multidisziplinären und integrativen Betrachtung raumrelevanter Auswirkungen der Corona-Krise wird der Bogen geschlagen von der aktuellen Krisenbewältigung zur konzeptionellen Krisenvorsorge für mögliche künftig zu erwartende Pandemien. Darauf aufbauend werden entsprechende Handlungsempfehlungen formuliert. Sie beziehen sich nicht nur auf Erkenntnisse zum mittelfristigen raumbezogenen Krisenmanagement, sondern auch auf Aussagen zu langfristigen strategischen Herausforderungen der räumlichen Entwicklung angesichts zukünftig zu erwartender Pandemien. Der Ad-hoc-Arbeitskreis "Pandemie und Raumentwicklung" der ARL - Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft hat hierzu für dieses Positionspapier interdisziplinäre Perspektiven aus Raumentwicklung und Raumplanung, Öffentlichem Gesundheitsdienst (ÖGD), Epidemiologie/ Public Health und Ökonomie sowie Sozialwissenschaften zusammengetragen und zu transdisziplinären Handlungsempfehlungen verdichtet. Diese richten sich an die unterschiedlichen Handlungsebenen der Raumentwicklung und Raumplanung

Informationsvermittler zwischen Schreiben und Lesen: Wissensmanager, Bibliothekarinnen oder wer oder was?

Seit dem Aufkommen von CD-ROM und Internet wird das Ende von Buch, Bibliothek und bibliothekarischen Aufgaben prognostiziert. Bibliothekarische Bedenkenträger, die sich diese Prognosen zu eigen gemacht haben, denken darüber nach, was sie dann tun sollen und wie man die Bibliothek retten kann, wenn sie es denn nötig hat. Ich denke, sie stellen einfach noch die falschen Fragen. Man muß die Bibliotheken gar nicht retten wollen. Wenn die Bibliothekare die richtigen Fragen stellen würden, dann könnten sich auch andere, vielleicht neue Perspektiven zeigen, auch für Bibliotheken. Darüber sollte man sprechen

Is there a lower visual field advantage for object affordances? A registered report

It’s been repeatedly shown that pictures of graspable objects can facilitate visual processing, even in the absence of reach-to-grasp actions, an effect often attributed to the concept of affordances (Gibson, 1979). A classic demonstration of this is the handle compatibility effect, characterised by faster reaction times when the orientation of a graspable object’s handle is compatible with the hand used to respond, even when the handle orientation is task-irrelevant. Nevertheless, whether faster RTs are due to affordances or spatial compatibility effects has been significantly debated. Firstly, we investigated whether we could replicate the handle compatibility effect while controlling for spatial compatibility. Participants (N=68) responded with left- or right-handed keypresses to whether the object was upright or inverted and, in separate blocks, whether the object was red or green. We failed to replicate the handle compatibility effect, with no significant difference between compatible and incompatible conditions, in both tasks. Secondly, we investigated whether there is a lower visual field (VF) advantage for the handle compatibility effect in line with what has been found for hand actions. A further 68 participants responded to object orientation presented either in the upper or lower VF. A significant handle compatibility effect was observed in the lower VF, but not the upper VF. This suggests that there is a lower VF advantage for affordances, possibly as the lower VF is where our actions most frequently occur. However, future studies should explore the impact of eye movements on the handle compatibility effect and tool affordances

Is there a lower visual field advantage for objects affordances? A registered report

It’s been repeatedly shown that pictures of graspable objects can facilitate visual processing and motor responses, even in the absence of reach-to-grasp actions, an effect often attributed the concept of affordances, originally introduced by Gibson (1979). A classic demonstration of this is the handle compatibility effect, which is characterised by faster reaction times when the orientation of a graspable object’s handle is compatible with the hand used to respond, even when the handle orientation is task irrelevant. Nevertheless, whether faster RTs are due to affordances or spatial compatibility effects has been significantly debated. In the proposed studies, we will use a stimulus-response compatibility paradigm to investigate firstly, whether we can replicate the handle compatibility effect while controlling for spatial compatibility. Here, participants will respond with left- or right-handed keypresses to whether the object is upright or inverted and, in separate blocks, whether the object is red or green. RTs will be analysed using repeated-measures ANOVAs. In line with an affordance account, we hypothesise that there will be larger handle compatibility effects for upright/inverted compared to colour judgements, as colour judgements do not require object identification and are not thought to elicit affordances. Secondly, we will investigate whether the handle compatibility effect shows a lower visual field (VF) advantage in line with functional lower VF advantages observed for hand actions. We expect larger handle compatibility effects for objects viewed in the lower VF than upper VF, given that the lower VF is the space where actions most frequently occur

Is there a lower visual field advantage for object affordances? A registered report

It’s been repeatedly shown that pictures of graspable objects can facilitate visual processing, even in the absence of reach-to-grasp actions, an effect often attributed to the concept of affordances (Gibson, 1979). A classic demonstration of this is the handle compatibility effect, characterised by faster reaction times when the orientation of a graspable object’s handle is compatible with the hand used to respond, even when the handle orientation is task-irrelevant. Nevertheless, whether faster RTs are due to affordances or spatial compatibility effects has been significantly debated. Firstly, we investigated whether we could replicate the handle compatibility effect while controlling for spatial compatibility. Participants (N=68) responded with left- or right-handed keypresses to whether the object was upright or inverted and, in separate blocks, whether the object was red or green. We failed to replicate the handle compatibility effect, with no significant difference between compatible and incompatible conditions, in both tasks. Secondly, we investigated whether there is a lower visual field (VF) advantage for the handle compatibility effect in line with what has been found for hand actions. A further 68 participants responded to object orientation presented either in the upper or lower VF. A significant handle compatibility effect was observed in the lower VF, but not the upper VF. This suggests that there is a lower VF advantage for affordances, possibly as the lower VF is where our actions most frequently occur. However, future studies should explore the impact of eye movements on the handle compatibility effect and tool affordances