Financial Compensation for Organ Donation Essay

In “Organ Sales Save Lives”, the author argues for the legalization and regulation of selling human organs, specifically kidneys, to those who need them. Her reasoning is that the laws forbidding this practice have enabled a black market that is harmful to both buyer and seller of organs. MacKay states that with no legally enforceable contracts and dubious procedural standards both parties in these transactions expose themselves to unnecessary risk. She claims that buyers can wait up to 10 years before receiving a kidney, with many dying before then, and sellers often do not receive fair compensation. MacKay believes that we do not have the moral right to try to stop those who live in abject poverty from selling a part of their own body to

“The economically disadvantaged have been shown to be less likely to be organ transplant candidates, financial incentives for organ donation could be characterized as exploitation.” Satel contests this policy in ‘Yuan a Kidney?’ by saying “Government sponsored compensation of healthy individuals who are willing to give one of their kidneys to save the life of a stranger is the best solution”. According to the 2012 National Survey of Organ Donation Attitudes and Behaviors “25.4% of the population reported that a financial incentive would increase their likelihood to donate their own organs”(Statistics, Web. 2012). Not all of which were “economically

'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)

There are 112 thousand people on the organ transplant list and 22 people die every day because they cannot find a match ("Organ Donation Statistics", 2017). In 1984, under the National Organ Transplant Act, America outlawed the buying and selling of organs. If caught selling organs illegally, those involved shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both (Prohibition of Organ Purchases, 2011). With organizations like Planned Parenthood selling the body parts of aborted fetuses, the compensation of organs has been compared to prostitution. (Gebelhoff, 2015). If organ donors begin being compensated for their gifts of life, the Black Market organ trafficking will increase due to supply and demand of organs which in return creates a higher victim rate related to the black market. Offering money for organs can be viewed as an attempt to coerce economically disadvantaged Americans to participate in organ donation even though these groups of people have been shown to be less likely to be candidates, monetary incentives for organs could be characterized as exploitation (National Kidney Foundation, 2003). The Compensation of organ donation is unethical due to the acts by organizations such as Planned Parenthood, black market increases along with acts of cruelty towards unexpecting victims, and the increase in costs to perform the transplants.

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.

In the essay “Organ Sales Will Save Lives” by Joanna MacKay, kidney failure is the main topic. In her thesis, MacKay states that, “Governments should not ban the sale of human organs; they should regulate it (92).” The thesis is supported by one main reason: it will save lives. In America 350,000 people struggle each year from this situation. MacKay also states that with the legal selling of organs, more people will be willing to give up their kidneys. There are also other ways to save lives like dialysis, but this situation would only be for a temporary time period, transplant is definitely the way to go. People in third world countries are

Most people and including this writer, probably have never given a lot of thought about organ donation, aside from checking ‘yes’ box for DMV. A far amount of people believe that once a person is dead, that using what is left of the body so another can benefit from the donation or, perhaps, even save another human being’s life. However, what about selling a kidney not donating one? The essay “Organ Sales Will Save Lives” written by Joanna McKay, delves a lot deeper into the hot topic of human organ sales and the need to change the laws. She makes a compelling argument for the legality of organ sales as well as an ethical one.

Kidneys are one of the most needed organs for transplant, but the National Kidney Foundation opposes the idea of allowing compensation for kidney transplant donors. Like many others who oppose the idea, the Foundation believes that "any attempt to assign a monetary value to the human body, or body parts, either arbitrarily, or through market forces, diminishes human dignity." ("Financial Incentives") Offering money for organs can also be seen as a way to compel the poor to sell their organs; tempting those in dire economic straits to sell off of parts of their body in exchange for the much needed money. And the offer of money for organs may not even solve the problem. A

The first argument of those who oppose payment for living organ donation is that once money is inserted into the issue of organ donation, it possibly creates uncontrollable and unregulated markets in which the poor, who ultimately need money, would be obviously exploited (Delmonico 2004), and in which the human body would become merchandise (Shapiro 20). Opponents point out that the poor are more likely to take any jobs that have a higher risk of death and go against their beliefs in a way they can to get money. Thus, it might be true that they would also be more likely to donate their organs in exchange for payment. Besides, rich individuals are able to abuse that weakness to exploit poor individuals to obtain their organs. However, these claims are highly questionable. When the government bans on the transfer of organs for valuable consideration, the international black markets in organs have been insidiously established and have rapidly developed (Friedman 746). In fact, the practice of those markets defiantly exploits the poor, because most of the organs are usually taken from the poor in indigent Third World countries (Shapiro 20). As an example, kidneys which have come from the poor in some parts of India have been often sold to the wealth in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, the Gulf States, especially, the United Kingdom and the United States (“Illegal Organ Trafficking Poses A Global Problem”). Generally, it is estimated that each year, there are 200 to 300 organs transferred

Deciding whether or not one would like to become an organ donor should be a relatively simple decision. But becoming a living organ donor, for someone who may need a kidney or liver, is something that is not always possible to those who do want to help. Unfortunately many people incur costs for the life-saving donation. Regardless of the fact that many other types of donors get paid for their donations. Here lies the frustration of many who are waiting years for their life saving organ. Many of which who do not receive them. If we can financially compensate individuals who donate hair, sperm, eggs and even become gestation surrogates, than there must be a way to financially reward live solid organ donators.

    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

The legalization of organ sales has been proposed as a solution to two distinct problems. The first is the problem of illegal organ trafficking and the second is the problem of inadequate supplies of organs available for transplants. Gregory (2011) outlined the case for legalizing organ sales by arguing that the current shortage of organs fuels a black market trade that benefits nobody except criminals. He further argues that such a move would add organs to the market, thereby saving the lives of those who would otherwise die without a transplant, while delivering fair value to the person donating the organ. There are a number of problems with the view that legalizing the organ trade is beneficial. Such a move would exacerbate negative health outcomes for the poor, strengthening inequality, but such a move would also violate any reasonable standard of ethics, by inherently placing a price on one's life and health. This paper will expand on these points and make the case that we should not allow people to pay for organs.

“It is within my power to drastically change his circumstances, but I do not want to give that man a gift if he does not deserve it.” (Smith, 2008) In the movie seven pounds, the actor, made the choice to sacrifice his organs for the good, he felt that he had nothing else to live for, so instead he would give life to someone else who rightfully deserved it. For years, humans have voluntarily donated their organs to caring and loving individuals. They donated freely and without compensation they gave and expected nothing in return. Now, we have individuals who desire to impose upon this freedom, by offering the exchange of organs for money. The selling of organs for monetary value is wrong, it increases the amount of organ trafficking within the black market, it does not create a just weight for those with lower amounts of income, and it is not safe, many people will place their lives at risk all for just a dime.

A controversial and prominent issue in the United States consists of organ transplants. Even though the waiting list currently has 115,000 transplant candidates, this number does not reflect the dire need for organ donors. A valid option the President’s Commission on Bioethics (PCB) should take into consideration consists of regulating an organ market. Currently, organ donors do not receive compensation for their time, effort, and overall donation of their organ. The United States should regulate the opportunity for people to buy and sell organs in a safe and legal environment. This method should be adopted because it is ethically acceptable. The buying and selling of organs respects the autonomy of donors, provides societal beneficence by potentially saving the lives of others, and goes hand-in-hand with the principle of nonmaleficence.

“By the end of 2000, more than forty thousand Americans will have died since 1988 awaiting an organ transplant” (Pence). Humans each day die waiting for organ transplants that may never come because of the organ shortage that looms over the United States. Organ donors are in high demand to save multiple people’s lives, in fact, for one dead donor there is a possibility of saving eight lives. People may be more inclined to be living donors if they got compensation for their deed. Gregory E. Pence states, “Medicine has the scientific capacity, the facilities, and the personnel to save them, but the taboo against rewarded donation prevents it from doing so”. The moral and ethical issues that seem to make compensation for organ donation illegal can also be taken into consideration since law treasures saving their money over another person’s life.