Case Study: Should Organ Donor Be Paid In Full

Before being paid was brought up in this survey, people were a lot more willing to donate to people they knew. When talking about donating organs those people who were willing to do donate were sixty-eight percent to people they didn’t know according to the survey taken by Ariana Eunjung Cha (Washington Post). Twenty-three percent more said that they would donate to family and friends, and nine percent said they would not donate at all. Then surveyors were asked to consider doing the same thing but in addition to fifty thousand dollars in compensation. Sixty-three percent said that the payment would make then even more likely to do it, and those willing to donate to only friends and family sixty percent of them said they would be more willing to donate. Out of the original nine percent who said they wouldn’t donate, twenty-six percent of the nine percent changed their mind and said they would reconsider because of the money. With these results, researchers said, “Thus payment motivated more US voters to positively consider donor nephrectomy rather than to reject the notion of donating a kidney” (Washingtonpost.com). In this case you can see the proof of these numbers, that more people will be willing to help complete strangers be able to live if they get compensated. Organ transplants do take place today in the world but, the donor gets the organ, the doctor gets paid, but

'Proponents of financial incentives for organ donation assert that a demonstration project is necessary to confirm or refute the types of concerns mentioned above. The American Medical Association, the United Network for Organ Sharing and the Ethics Committee of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons have called for pilot studies of financial incentives. Conversely, the National Kidney Foundation maintains that it would not be feasible to design a pilot project that would definitively demonstrate the efficacy of financial incentives for organ donation. Moreover, the implementation of a pilot project would have the same corrosive effect on the ethical, moral and social fabric of this country that a formal change in policy would have. Finally, a demonstration project is objectionable because it will be difficult to revert to an altruistic system once payment is initiated, even if it becomes evident that financial incentives don 't have a positive impact on organ donation. '(http://www.kidney.org/news/newsroom/positionpaper03)

The demand for organ donors far exceeds the supply of available organs. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) … there are more than 77,000 people in the U.S. who are waiting to receive an organ (Organ Selling 1). The article goes on to say that the majority of those on the national organ transplant waiting list are in need of kidneys, an overwhelming 50,000 people. Although financial gain in the U.S and in most countries is illegal, by legalizing and structuring a scale for organ donor monetary payment, the shortage of available donors could be reduced. Legalizing this controversial issue will help with the projected forecast for a decrease in the number of people on the waiting list, the ethical concerns around benefitting from organ donation, and to include compensation for the organ donor.

As technology continues to progress the feasibility of organ transplantation becomes a commonplace. It is very common for organs to be donated after one passes if it is the wishes of the deceased. As the supply of organs from the deceased is greatly outnumbered by the number of patients on waitlists living donors becomes an issue. Many times a relative or close friend is willing to give up an organ to help save a life. The question is: Is it ethical to accept a monetary payment in exchange for an organ to save a life?

My grandfather was a lucky one, though he had to wait 5 years until his luck was fully granted. He was diagnosed with sever kidney failure, spent 5 years on dialysis, then was blessed with the option of getting a kidney… twice. Though the first time he had to reject because of the health of his wife-after her death, he was called once more with the option of having a kidney transplant. However, my grandfather is an exception, most people do not get called once, let alone twice, for the option of receiving a kidney. As of October 25th 2013, about 100,000 people were waiting for a new kidney in the United States. (SCU) Every day, 18 people from that list die along with 10 others being added. As of October 25th, 2013, out of the 100,000 people waiting for a new kidney while only about 10,000 received one; that means 90,000 people are either rolled over to the next year, or die waiting. The marvelousness of kidney donations, compared to other organs donations, is that each person is born with two and can sustain a healthy life with just one; simple facts such as this is what has driven the black market kidney trade to flourish. (CBSNEWS) However, if this is the case then why aren’t more people donating? Is it because they are not getting something in return? Why donate for free when someone on the black market will pay 10,000 dollars? The main arguments against black market organ donations, not limited to kidneys, is that people do not know the risks- yet if someone is

Organs were given to us when we came to life. We should give them to others as they were given to us. Why should anyone have to pay for something that can be given freely? If an organ is available, it should go to the person who needs it the most. No one should have to worry about the cost of it. Donating an organ can save a life. If someone cannot afford to pay for an organ, are we supposed to just let him or her die? That is not morally right. While the government plans to save more lives by legalizing payment for organs, it won’t necessarily work out that way. According to the National Kidney Foundation, 92% of families who turned down donating organs of their deceased loved ones said they still would not have donated even if they received payment in return (237). This goes to show that even with money involved, most people

The ethical issue for the majority of people in the U.S. does not seem to be whether donating organs should be allowed, but instead should someone be compensated for their donation. As described earlier, the U.S. has a major shortage of organs and an even greater shortage is found in some areas of the world. However, countries like Iran have found a way to eliminate their shortage completely. “Iran adopted a system of paying kidney donors in 1988 and within 11 years it became the only country in the world to clear its waiting list for transplants.” (Economist, 2011) Although this sounds promising, it is important to look at the effects on the organ donor. In a study done on Iranian donors who sold their kidneys, it was found that many donors were negatively affected emotionally and physically after donating and that given the chance most would never donate again nor would they advise anyone else to do so. (Zargooshi, 2001) Additionally, many claimed to be worse off financially after donating due to an inability to work. (Goyal, 2002) To some, this last set of findings would be enough to supersede the benefit of clearing the organ waiting lists.

    Today, medical operations save lives around the world, a feat that surely would surprise our ancestors. Many operations replace defective organs with new ones; for new organs to be ready to be implanted there need to be organ donors. We are not so advanced a society that we can grow replacement organs. Thousands of organ donors in the United States every year are seen as doing the most noble of deeds in modern civilization, and most of the time death has to occur before the organ can be used. Now, though, some are suggesting that organ donors—or their beneficiaries—should be paid for their donations. This should not happen, as it creates a strain on the already tight national budget, forces

Proponents of financial compensation for organ donors argue that it’s legal to be paid for donating reproductive material, and they suggest that organs should be handled in the same manner. The obvious difference, however, is that inability to conceive a child isn’t life-threatening. Healthy organs for transplant are limited, and recipients must be carefully selected to ensure that the transplant is successful. Imagine the moral chaos that would ensue if organs were sold to the highest bidder.

The incentive can range from tax credits to paying a portion of the donors education or debts. The debate and issue with this is that receiving compensation for donations undermines the meaning of the donation. Instead of being a selfless act, it becomes more of an entitlement to receive a reward. Furthermore, there are approaches that are ethically unacceptable such as organ conscription. Organ conscription would be considered ethically unacceptable because it violates donor autonomy. Instead of requiring an oral or written agreement beforehand from the donor, the organs are snatched as if they were personal property of the government. This also violates the principle of nonmaleficence because there would be harm towards the families of the deceased and their consent would not be taken into

Doctors should compensate patients for their donated cells, tissue, and organs. Doctors are some of the highest paid professionals in the world, and they can easily afford to compensate people for their body parts when taken and sold for research. Furthermore, the business of selling human cells and tissue for research purposes is a multibillion dollar industry. The United States government has fought this repeatedly, but with the technology currently available there is no excuse to not compensate donors for their cells and tissue.

Despite the fact it is illegal to sell organs, to help increase the numbers of donors, some states are offering to pay the family indirectly. “If a family agrees to organ donation, Pennsylvania pays $300 directly to the family’s funeral home to help defray the cost of the funeral” (Organ Donation). With some states paying the family indirectly, there has been an increase in the number of donors. Being paid indirectly helps the families immensely. Not only does this help with the costs, but it takes away any stress they may have had about being able to afford the funeral. There’s no question that a change needs to be made to help improve the number of available organs.

In the United States today, people lose their lives to many different causes. Though this is tragic, there are also a large group of people who could benefit from these deaths; and those people are people in need of an organ transplant. Although a sudden or tragic death can be heart breaking to a family, they could feel some relief by using their loved ones' organs to save the lives of many others. This act of kindness, though, can only be done with consent of both the victim and the family; making the donation of organs happen much less than is needed. The need for organs is growing every day, but the amount provided just is not keeping up. Because of the great lack of organ donors, the constant need for organs,

Throughout history, there have been many cultures that operate using a social stratification. These societies may use a caste system or a class system to set the hierarchy in their cultures. Many times, these systems are based on external factors that cannot be controlled by people. The influential factors can be things such as which family you are born into or how much money, influence, and power certain groups have in that civilization. People who have the money and the power receive most or all of the benefits while the people that have little to no money and power receive nothing. When it comes to proper medical treatment, that is a right to which every human being is entitled. All people are empowered to have the best opportunities to help them in maintaining and improving their bodies to live long and prosperous lives. However, by introducing an opportunity for money to be exchanged for body parts is an opportunity to introduce an unfair corruption into an already complicated medical system. Everyone wants their loved ones to receive every available opportunity to improve their health and bring them back to a normal lifestyle. Be that as it may, if an opportunity to be able to pay for certain medical privileges or body parts arises, there is a guarantee that those opportunities will be abused and people will receive needed organs based upon their social status. The same social stratification that has kept people underprivileged for years.

Throughout history, there have been many cultures that operate using a social stratification. These societies may use a caste system or a class system to set the hierarchy in their lifestyles. Many times, these systems thrive on external factors that cannot be controlled by people. The influential factors can be things such as which family you are born into or how much money, influence, and power specific groups have in that civilization. People who have the money and the power receive most or all of the benefits while the people that have little to no money and power receive little to nothing. When it comes to proper medical treatment, that is a right to which every human being is entitled. All people are empowered to have the best opportunities to help them in maintaining and improving their bodies to live long and prosperous lives. However, by introducing an opportunity for money to be exchanged for body parts is an opportunity to present a bias and corrupt arrangement into an already complicated medical system. Everyone wants their loved ones to receive every available opportunity to improve their health and bring them back to a healthy lifestyle. Be that as it may, if a chance to be able to pay for certain medical privileges or body parts arises, there is a guarantee that this situation will create an opportunity for abuse and people will receive needed organs based upon their social status. The same social stratification that has kept