The Canadian government is considering a 'presumed consent' or opt-out system for organ donation to increase donor rates. What are the pros and cons of this policy compared to the current opt-in system?

Where answers to this question lose points

Our scorer marks every answer on three parts. For each of the 41 applicants who finished this question on Confetto, we took their first scored answer and counted the part that scored lowest.

• Structure: a clear order and a clear point20 of 41

Confetto data as of November 8, 2026. A part is shown only when 20 or more applicants share it. Answers where two parts tied are not counted toward either. We never show anyone's answers or details.

What this question tests

• Ethics
• Critical thinking
• Health policy

How to structure your answer

1. What it's about (15 seconds). The question asks whether Canada should presume consent to organ donation rather than require registration, balancing lives saved against individual autonomy. The answer identifies consequences for patients awaiting transplants, potential donors, families, and vulnerable populations who may struggle to exercise their choice.
2. Both sides (40 seconds). For presumed consent, the answer emphasizes saving lives by including willing donors who never register, citing Spain and Austria as examples. Against it, the answer argues that presumed permission is not explicit informed consent and may disadvantage people unaware of, or unable to navigate, opting out.
3. Your position (20 seconds). The answer ultimately leans toward presumed consent, provided implementation protects individual autonomy and respects cultural differences. Its main reason is that the potential to save lives outweighs the ethical concerns when meaningful safeguards allow people to understand and exercise their choices.
4. Its downside (15 seconds). The cost of this position is accepting a system that may treat silence as permission, including when people do not understand their options. The answer would soften that risk through extensive public education, easy opt-out procedures, and possible waiting periods so families can understand their loved one's wishes.
5. What would change it (10 seconds). The answer does not explicitly name a fact that would change its position, but its support depends on safeguards being effective. Evidence that people, particularly vulnerable populations, cannot understand or readily exercise their opt-out rights would undermine the stated basis for supporting presumed consent.
6. Common pitfalls. A flat yes or no before weighing lives saved against informed consent, or discussing only one side, would weaken this answer. Other mistakes include inventing donation statistics or treating international comparisons as proof of causation, and remaining undecided rather than stating a conditional position.

Example answer from Confetto

Example answer from Confetto. Not a real applicant's answer.

I believe this is a really complex issue that touches on both the urgent need for more organ donors and fundamental questions about personal autonomy. My immediate reaction is that I can see compelling arguments on both sides.

The strongest argument for presumed consent is the potential to save more lives. I know that Canada currently has thousands of people on organ waiting lists, and many die waiting for transplants. Countries like Spain and Austria have seen significant increases in donation rates with opt-out systems. The reality is that many people who would be willing to donate simply never get around to registering, so presumed consent could capture those individuals while still respecting those who actively choose to opt out.

However, I'm genuinely concerned about the autonomy and informed consent issues this raises. I believe medical decisions should ideally be made with explicit, informed consent rather than assumed consent. There's something that feels ethically troubling about the government presuming what someone would want done with their body after death. I worry this could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations who might be less aware of their ability to opt out or less comfortable navigating the system to do so.

I think the most important consideration is ensuring any system truly respects individual choice while maximizing the potential to save lives. If Canada moved toward presumed consent, I believe it would need to be coupled with extensive public education campaigns so people understand their options, easy opt-out processes, and perhaps waiting periods so families have time to understand and respect their loved one's wishes.

Ultimately, I lean toward supporting presumed consent if implemented thoughtfully, because I think the potential to save lives outweighs the concerns, provided we maintain robust safeguards for individual autonomy and cultural sensitivity.

Use it for its structure. Interviewers can tell a memorized script, so tell your own story.

Keep going

• Some argue that to address physician shortages, medical schools should preferentially admit students who contractually agree to serve in a rural or underserved area for a set number of years. Discuss the effectiveness and potential drawbacks of such a policy.
• Many have proposed a 'sin tax' on products like sugary drinks and junk food to discourage unhealthy habits and fund healthcare. Discuss the ethical and practical implications of such a tax.
• A patient refuses a life-saving vaccination for their child based on personal beliefs. How do you balance the parents' autonomy with the child's well-being and public health concerns?
• Medical school interview questions by type
• The full interview question bank