Financial Rewards For Living Organ Donors

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

“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)

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.

It is ethical to compensate organ donors. There are many reasons for supporting compensation for organ donors however; the main one is the number of organ donors will increase, which will save more than thousands of people. NOTA section 301 shows that NOTA’s prohibition was meant to protect against monetary commercial exchanges, such as those between patient–buyers, donor–sellers, and profiteering middlemen. The current view in compensating donors is not paying them the money for their organ on the spot, but by other helpful, resourceful compensations. Currently, there are still a great deal of patients on the waiting list that are dying and in desperate need of major transplants like heart, kidney and even liver. The activists who are against

No one wants to voluntarily sign up for an unnecessary surgery, which is why there is a five to ten year wait limit for an organ donation. The New York Times Article “Test Incentives for Organ Donations – There’s No Reason Not To,” written by Sally Satel, states that in order to raise the number of donations, people should be rewarded (Satel). Based on the statistics Satel provides, she says altruism is not producing enough donations. Instead, she believes the government should offer some form of incentive to lure people into doing a good deed (Satel). Satel’s article does develop solid points to teach readers about her topic effectively while simultaneously providing evidence to endorse her argument. She gets her purpose across by

Organ transplantation has been a very successful method of treatment for patients diagnosed with an illness resulting in the failure of an organ including a kidney or the heart. Procedures like organ transplantation give patients hope by extending their lifespan. However, there is an enormous conflict between the number of organs needed and the number of donors available, which has increased the need to legalize the compensation for donating an organ, encouraging people to donate. This annotated bibliography puts forward the research carried out in the area of organ transplant compensation. Many of the articles signify the need to compensate organ donors in order to increase the number of donors.

Considering all of the risks a donor must take on, it only seems fair to provide some sort of compensation for their actions. Justice theory focuses on the rights persons are entitled to, while also taking into considerations the duties imposed on persons in society (Parks, 2010, p. 10). Duties are the actions that are required of citizens living within a community as part of their social contract (Parks, 2010, p. 10). Although being altruistic and donating an organ to another human being is the current process utilized for obtaining organs, it is not necessarily a citizen’s duty to do so. Since donating organs is not a duty that citizens must uphold, it only makes sense that these persons should be compensated for their actions. The current process of altruism may actually inhibit those who would otherwise donate if some sort of compensation was offered. Not everyone can afford to miss 1-2 months of work, develop debilitating health concerns, or run the risk of losing health insurance. These issues are easily overlooked when donating to a relative, but sometimes even having a relative in need is not enough. Consider the following example: A potential donor has a sister in need of an organ, but that donor is also a single mother raising a

Every day, 20 people die because they are unable to receive a vital organ transplant that they need to survive. Some of these people are on organ donation lists and some of them are not. The poor and minorities are disproportionately represented among those who do not receive the organs they need. In the United States alone, nearly 116,000 people are on waiting lists for vital organ transplants. Another name is added to this list every 10 minutes. This paper will argue that organ donation should not be optional. Every person who dies, or enters an irreversible vegetative state with little or no brain function, should have his or her organs-more specifically, those among the organs that are suitable for donation-harvested. A single healthy donor who has died can save up to eight lives (American Transplant Foundation).

In the United States, there are currently 116,608 people in need of a lifesaving organ transplant, and 75,684 people that are currently active waiting list candidates (HRSA, 2017). Between January and September 2017, there have only been 12,211 organ donors (HRSA, 2017) which is far less that the current demand for lifesaving organs. The shortage of donors could lead to an individual looking for outside sources such as the black market to find their lifesaving organ. Offering incentives to persons who chose to donate their organs or those of a deceased loved one is important because it could stop the illegal selling of organs, save the life of someone in need of an organ transplant and benefit both the donor and recipient.

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.

In addition, surgeons have learned how to keep increasingly patients alive longer and how to make more people eligible for transplants. Still, there are shortage of organs donation. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), a non-profit, scientific and educational organization, organizes transplant registration. 3448 people died in 1995 because organs were not available for them in time. A third to a half of all people on waiting lists die before an organ can be found for them. This shortage raises several difficult ethical problems. How should the limited supply of organs be distributed? Should donors be encouraged to donate by the use of financial incentives? Opponents of the sale of organs point out that the inevitable result will be further exploitation of poor people by the

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.

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,