Organ Donors Must Not be Paid Essay

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

Nicky Santos, S.J., a visiting scholar at the Ethic Center, claims that people who are desperate often make decisions that are not the most beneficial for themselves, which then results in the rich having the privilege of excellent health care while the poor do not. There is also the “do no harm” rule in bioethics that forbid procedures that might harm donors. The question lies in whether we can make sure that donors’ health won’t be jeopardized in the transaction. On the contrary, some might say that not giving donors incentives actually put their health to more risk since no incentives have been given to pay for their medical bill in case the donors are harmed. There has also been debates about whether organ donation should remain as an act of altruism or should we instead move along to justice. While some might value such humanity and hate the idea of it being

There are diversified augments in favor of and against organ sales. I will focus on the arguments of Joanna MacKay from her essay “Organ Sales Will Save Lives” and R.R Kishore’s essay “Human Organs, Scarcities, and Sale: Morality Revisited”. MacKay argues in favor of organ trade legalization stating “government should not ban the sale of human organs; they should regulate it. Kishore argues against organ trade legalization stating “the integrity of the human body should never be subject to trade”.

'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)

should organ donors be paid in full? A current study finds that organs from paid donors cost less than other alternatives. And could improve patient outcomes. But it does not address moral concerns or the potential for abuse of the system.Because of the National Organ Transplant Act, more Americans have lost their lives waiting for an organ. The law bans almost any non-medical payment to living organ donors. Whether by the government, health insurance companies, or charities. Recipients themselves can refund donors’ travel, residence, and lost wages, which helps but only when the beneficiaries have the means and will to do so. Also, they should not take a deceased person organs. What if they were poor and their family needs money. However,

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.

Paying people for giving their kidneys would dramatically increase the number of donors and save many more lives as opposed to waiting for people to donate their organs out of the kindness of their heart and expect nothing in return. MacKay appeals to a person’s logical nature when she states that money rules people, in which it very much so does. The money that could be gained from legal organ transactions is immense; MacKay states that it is in the ballpark of $25,000. MacKay’s solution would not only legalize the selling of organs, but also make it regulated by the government, eliminating many people’s fears of the possible consequences of legalization.  She also argues how it would be easier to control the lawful sale of organs as opposed to the unlawful sale.

In todays time, the demand for organs have sky rocketed, but the organ supply has dropped tremendously. There are too many people on this planet for their to be others dying from not receiving an organ. Not enough people take the time out to sign up to donate organs. Signing up to become a organ donor is as simple as checking a box on your license form. Being an organ donor does not quickly put an end to your life as most people may think. It simply secures another person 's life once yours has come to an end. If organ donation was made mandatory it could say hundreds of more lives than right now. When a

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?

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

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 the United States, there are over one hundred thousand people on the waiting list to receive a life-saving organ donation, yet only one out of four will ever receive that precious gift (Statistics & Facts, n.d.). The demand for organ donation has consistently exceeded supply, and the gap between the number of recipients on the waiting list and the number of donors has increased by 110% in the last ten years (O'Reilly, 2009). As a result, some propose radical new ideas to meet these demands, including the selling of human organs. Financial compensation for organs, which is illegal in the United States, is considered repugnant to many. The solution to this ethical dilemma isn’t found in a wallet; there are other alternatives available

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.

If the selling of organs becomes legal. Who is to say that the donor will not be tempted to sell the organs just because they are in need of money, and lack the understanding of the risks that are involved, such as kidney failure and various renal disorders that could occur? One could easily make a life changing decision under, stressful conditions, especially if that person has high debt or if that person feels that, that is their last hope. Many choices can affect their decision; however each person truly needs to understand the “why” and the effects of donor donation and not just become swayed because of the deposit of monetary funds. A physician who donated his organs at the age of eighteen went on to regret it after doing research and he

There is no cost to donors or their families for organ or tissue donation. It's illegal to pay someone for an organ.