Suchergebnisse

As a sovereign country, Mozambique initially relied on international solidarity and managed its donor relations well. Donor dependency entailed some loss of agency for the government as it allowed donors to challenge its capacity but never its authority. However, in the last decade, donor countries have expressed disappointment with reforms and challenged the government's legitimacy. This is not only because of developments in Mozambique. Donor countries have become less enthusiastic about long-term, harmonized development cooperation and less concerned with aid effectiveness for poverty alleviation and inclusive growth. Aid budgets are under pressure and development finance is linked more to other donor countries' foreign policy concerns, especially security and commerce. Mozambique should expect increasing instrumentalization of aid budgets by donors. It must be able to address its partners' concerns other than those of poverty alleviation, human rights, and democracy and carefully weigh conflicting interests of its partners against its own long-term interests. The institutions Mozambique developed to deal with donors are not well suited to today's challenges. They focus on less relevant areas of the relationship with foreign countries, which often serve other agendas. Reforms could start with strengthening Mozambique's foreign service as a genuine coordinator of foreign relations and the establishment of greater discipline around national plans and strategies. Institutionalizing strong links between the foreign ministry and key economic ministries under the leadership of the prime minister could help.

ABSTRACTIn this paper the authors, all experienced social workers with research and practice interests in assisted conception, review practices concerning access to genetic origins information in adoption, and consider to what extent these may be relevant for practice in donor‐assisted conception. The paper concludes with policy and practice recommendations that take account of the views of donor offspring and their desire for increased information about their genetic heritage.

AbstractDempsey, Nordqvist and Kelly's recent publication in BioSocieties highlights the complexity of disclosure in donor conception, which is legally, ethically, and morally challenging. However, contemporary society means that donor-conceived people's awareness of their conception history can no longer be controlled by their parents. Late, accidental, and non-parent disclosure is becoming more prevalent and can be distressing. Research has consistently found that openness in donor conception families from an early age is optimal, and that disclosure positively impacts rather than threatens family relationships. Despite this, disclosure can be difficult for parents, particularly if they perceive an unsupportive social context. Both donor conception and adoption literature has found more positive outcomes among disclosing families compared to non-disclosing families and interestingly, parents who have chosen to disclose have not reported regret. This response briefly discussed these important considerations and also notes some instances of inaccurate reporting and misleading information in their article.

Donor engagement in DRC is more important than ever -- but donors need to reassess their strategies. Adapted from the source document.

Cover -- Title -- Biblography -- End User License Agreement -- Contents -- Preface -- List of Contributors -- Introduction -- Juan A. Sanchez and Robert S.D. Higgins* -- CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION -- CONFLICT OF INTEREST -- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS -- REFERENCES -- The Organ Allocation System -- Karen Kennedy* and Charles Alexander -- INTRODUCTION -- Legislative, Regulatory and Accreditation History Highlights -- Uniform Anatomical Gift Act -- Organ Procurement Organization Accreditation Program -- Organ Donor Clinical Processes -- Referral and Evaluation -- Authorization Processes -- Clinical Donor Management -- Donor Management Priorities -- Organ Allocation Overview -- Heart and Lung Wait Lists and Allocation: Excerpts from UNOS Policies 6, 10 [2] -- Liver Wait List and Allocation: Excerpts from UNOS Policy 9 [2] -- Intestine Allocation Algorithm: Excerpts from UNOS Policy 7 [2] -- Geographic Location [2] -- Medical Urgency [2] -- Additional Considerations -- Kidney Wait List and Allocation: Excerpts from UNOS Policy 8 [2] -- KDPI Score [2] -- EPTS Score [2] -- CPRA Percentage [2] -- KAS System [2] -- Kidney Allocation Points Score [2] -- Antigen Mismatch [2] -- Geographic Proximity -- Double Kidney Allocation [2] -- Pancreas Wait List and Allocation: Excerpts from UNOS Policy 11 [2] -- CPRA Percentage [2] -- Antigen Mismatch [2] -- Geographic Proximity and Waiting Time -- Kidney - Pancreas Allocation: Excerpts from UNOS Policy 11 [2] -- ABO -- VCA Wait List and Allocation: Excerpts from UNOS Policy 12 [2] -- Surgical Recovery Processes -- Follow-up Activities -- CONCLUSION -- CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION -- CONFLICT OF INTEREST -- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS -- REFERENCES -- Identification of the Brain Dead Donor -- Justin Zamoyski and Diana Greene-Chandos* -- INTRODUCTION -- PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY -- PREPARATION FOR CLINICAL EXAM -- Coma -- Neuroimaging Correlates

AbstractThe increasing use of donor‐advised funds (DAFs) creates challenges for nonprofit managers and fundamentally changes the way that many donors give to charity. We conducted 48 in‐depth interviews with DAF donors to understand their strategies of how they give through a DAF. From the interviews, we found three distinct models of DAF giving strategies: tubs, tanks, and towers. Tub donors give quickly through a DAF, moving money in and out annually. Tank donors contribute large lump sums and grant the money away in the relatively near future. Tower donors take a calculated approach with the DAF to sustain their philanthropic activity over time. Several factors relate to these strategies, including the sources and timing of contributions, different purposes of grantmaking, tax implications, investment strategies, and family involvement. Our findings may help nonprofit managers, fundraisers, and other stakeholders to better understand the various ways donors give through DAFs.

The development of medical knowledge has resulted in a demand in society for donor organs, but the recruitment of donor organs for transplantation is difficult. This paper aims to provide some general insights into the complex interaction processes involved. A laissez-faire policy, in which market forces are relied on, is not acceptable from an ethical and legal point of view in most western European countries. Especially at the demand side of the exchange of donor organs, commercialism is to be opposed. We judge the use of commercial incentives at the supply side less unacceptable in theory but not feasible in western European countries. Since market forces are deemed unacceptable as instruments for coordinating demand and supply of donor organs, donor procurement has to be considered as a collective good, and therefore governments are faced with the responsibility of making sure that alternative interaction and distribution mechanisms function. The role of organ procurement agencies (OPAs) in societal interaction concerning postmortem organ donation is described using a two-dimensional conceptualisation scheme. Medical aspects of living organ donation are described. An international comparative description of legal systems to regulate living organ donation in western European countries completes this survey.