Cheah Shi Shiun, 16

School

Bendemeer Secondary School

7 January 2023

Can social media make a positive impact on organ donation?

This page has been migrated from an earlier version of the site and may display formatting inconsistencies. We are working to refine this page progressively.

School: Bendemeer Secondary School

Topic: Can social media make a positive impact on organ donation?

Award: Special Mention, Senior Category, 2023

A Call, A Post, A Text For Life

Social Media. An addictive drug to adolescents. A wealth of misinformation. Lives shortened by a single message. All this begs the question. Does it have the ability to do any good and save lives?

A society still somewhat unaware of the truth of the term “organ transplant” widens the abyss between organ donation and organ demand. Each year in Singapore, more than 500 patients are waiting for a life-saving transplant¹. While the government has taken extensive steps to increase organ donation rates, such as implementing HOTA² and MTERA³, it still had a deceased organ donation rate of 6.6 organ donors per million population (pmp) in 2017. It was low compared to Spain's 46.9 pmp in 2017, which was the highest in the world at the time4. It is obvious that further steps are needed.

With the introduction of the internet and its many tools, they now serve to dispel the ignorance of society with the younger generations coming along as well as adapting to one of the world’s most common communication and sharing services, steadily increasing an already large audience pool with no sight of stopping. However, vital information that embraces people with the truth of organ donation is still mostly dispersed through traditional mass media. An undirected, non-interactive and ineffective method in this current generation. Compared to social media, however, social media can distribute content towards its intended target audiences, unlike mass media which distributes content randomly across a broad audience pool. In essence, most social media topics target local, regional and international audiences with algorithms to ensure that targeted audiences are willing to engage with the content, yet only viral mass media topics may reach their intended audience. As an estimate, it would take 38 years for radio to disseminate a message to 50 million people, 13 years for television, four years for the internet, and three years for the iPod, but less than three months for Facebook⁵.

The centre of attention of social media is to let people or users of it connect with people within their circle of friends and the communities at large. On the other hand, traditional media, a decades-old one-way communication link between the world and the people, focuses on keeping people aware of various things such as politics, international affairs, fashion trends, etc. Moreover, it allows strangers to comment, react and reply to other people’s posts and comments, allowing more interaction as opposed to traditional channels where there is only one-way communication. Moreover, it bestows more control over the shared message, meaning particular themes and topics can be adjusted to the post’s intended audience. Editors or administrators of these posts can also see the engagement level by the number of likes or comments. Checking the level of engagement of news stories is more troublesome as it requires going onto another website and filling in many tedious details so that the editors can reach back to you. However, social media platforms conveniently have comments and likes connected back to easily contactable accounts whenever they want, just like a trail of footprints leading back to your house.

The media can be called an ever-changing virtual encyclopaedia. An analysis revealed that family members believe they receive information about organ donation through the media. However, the most influential information came from sensationalistic, negative media portrayals⁶. This may be explained by empirical studies revealing that the public would be particularly susceptible to media influence when their relevant knowledge level was low, suggesting that the media can exert a particularly pronounced impact on attitudes toward organ donation, as the common understanding of organ donation is currently in a nascent state⁷. Still, several media campaigns’ effects shown to be promising. For instance, between June 2014 and December 2019, the social media effect in seven liver transplants between living donors and strangers at NUH's National University Centre for Organ Transplantation. In comparison, a woeful two such procedures were performed between living liver donors and strangers in the preceding 18 years⁸.

One of the highest increases in declared organ donors worldwide due to social media was dubbed “the Facebook Effect”. The number of people who registered themselves as organ donors increased by 21-fold in a single day in the US⁹. The researchers found that on May 1, 2012, when Facebook implemented a system where users could share their organ donor status with friends and register to be one, 57,451 users updated their profiles on their organ donor status. There was a stunning 13,012 new online donor registrations on the first day, representing a 21.2-fold increase over the average daily registration rate of 616 nationwide. Although it could be decades before researchers determine whether those people are eligible for organ donation, it would be easier for family members of these people to know their wishes to be organ donors at the time of their death. With a couple of tweaks to this feature, such as adding links to NOTU’s opt-out form and MTERA opt-in form¹⁰, this could be compatible with MOH presumed consent system. The presumed consent system is that anyone of age and good health is able to donate their organs, such as the liver, heart and corneas, upon death unless they choose to withdraw from it¹¹, bringing out the flaws in this particular system. Since family members did not receive an explicit statement from the deceased, objections could be raised on the basis that the demised may not have wished for organ donation. A popular social media platform incorporated with a system where people can declare their choices of being organ donors or not could be implemented in Singapore. This saves valuable time for the medical staff to hash out any conflicts and get the organs to where they’re needed, as families will be more likely to cooperate with medical staff with knowledge of the deceased’s decision.

Social media could influence people's doubtfulness about organ donation procedures more effectively than traditional media. Many people who have heard of organ donation may sometimes be misled or have their own religious views on the matter. Some of them are hoodwinked by ridiculous misconceptions such as myths of premature declarations of death; the transference of personality traits from donor to the recipient which seem to be some of the most active references by the media. Social media platforms offer access to a wide range of opinions and perspectives from all over the world. This can expose users to ideas and views that may not have been encountered otherwise and may challenge their existing ignorant beliefs and opinions. This gives social media a fighting chance to dispel these beliefs, unlike traditional means, as users happen upon this content repetitively and doubt their own views on organ donation. Traditional media just spews out random or trending topics which may not appear again after a period, allowing the challenging view for the watcher to fade from memory. Social media would be the irresistible never-ending itch on your leg that you would continuously scratch, repeating the same old opposite opinion that the user fact-checks himself to ensure he has the correct information to form his opinion.

The quote, “There is no such thing as a free lunch,” is fitting for this topic. With benefits come costs. Social media can also be appropriately described as a double-edged sword. With the use of social media in promoting organ donation, the same can be used in defacing it with conspiracies and nonsensical facts. Unlike traditional methods, where information to be disseminated goes through multiple layers of fact-checking, information on social media can be circulated by anyone, which means the reliability is not utterly terrific by any means. Information on traditional media is also produced by authorised journalists and reporters; therefore, the details are generally accurate and reliable¹². Social media could be called the proverbial ‘Death-Squad’, the virtual equivalent of an executor, to organ donation rates. This could further decrease organ donation rates lower than usual in other countries, enabling countries to fall upon their own spear. The words of these conspirators should be taken with a pinch of salt when there is no concrete evidence to back them. However, our race is easily susceptible to influence, and these conspiracies must be countered for the people to recognise the truth with the same tool, social media.

When all is said and done, we are still left with the question of whether social media benefits organ donation. I certainly agree that social media can make a positive impact on organ donation. With the endless realm of social media and its many communities continuing to pop up like pimples, this can be harnessed for the medical community and the government to connect with the people and empower them with the knowledge that could chalk a fine line between life and death.

References

Disclaimer: Please note that the views and opinions expressed in the essays for the Live On Festival 2023 are those of the participants and are not endorsed by the National Organ Transplant Unit (Ministry of Health). To learn more about organ donation and organ transplantation in Singapore, please visit www.liveon.gov.sg

Government officials will never ask you to transfer money or disclose bank log-in details over a phone call.

Cheah Shi Shiun, 16

Reach us