A Regulated Organ Market

Every day some dies after waiting years on a transplant list. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 says that in the United States, the sale of organs is illegal. Some believe this act may be preventing thousands of people from getting the organs that will save their lives. The truth is every day someone dies and their organs could be used to help others and everyday a life of one and the livelihood of another could be saved. The reasons for allowing the sale of organs is very simple to understand. It can help others financially, save money on medical expenses and most importantly, save lives. Critiques believe this would be a mistake causing spur of the moment decisions, and illegal obtain these organs for sale. With the use of regulation, these doubts can be laid to rest. Before the problem can be solved, the problem has to be identified.

There are a lot of people in this world that are going through organ failure. The National Kidney Foundation even found, “Every fourteen minutes someone is added to the kidney transplant list”. Statistically speaking, that is a great deal of people in need of a vital organ. The author Joanna MacKay talks about the need for organ donations in her article “Organ Sales Will Save Lives”. MacKay disputes her case briefly when stating her thesis in the first paragraph. She gives the audience her opinion on how the selling of organs should be built to become legal. Throughout the text she touches on the black market selling of kidneys. She also incorporates how other third world countries have allowed this practice of organ sales. The article includes her insight on what would happen if organ sales would be legalized and how it would be regulated.

The first organ donation was successfully performed in 1954 (Major). Since then, institutions have set up many regulations and processes that have saved many lives by allowing people to donate their organs, but government policies in the United States have set up laws that prevent individuals to make choices about their own bodies. The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) is a regulation that prevents those who prefer to profit from their donation. The purpose of the act was to, “prohibit the assignment of a monetary value to an organ for transplantation, thus preventing commercialization and ensuring some level of equity in access to organs” (Delmonico). “Punishment includes fines up to $50 000 and 5 years in prison” (Friedman). The only country that legalizes organs to be bought and sold is Iran. The Iranian government recognized the overwhelming increasing of resources needed for dialysis as more and more people were becoming ill, so the government decided to make it legal to pay citizens to have transplants mainly in the UK (Major). When a person is in need of an organ, doctors assess whether or not that person is eligible for a transplant (Bernard). Once they have been approved, the patient will be referred by the doctor to a transplant center where they evaluate the patient’s physical and mental health as well as the patient’s social support to clear the requirements for being considered a viable candidate for an organ transplant, and finding the right donor is all

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”.

The debate has raged on for some time now concerning the ethical issues surrounding the trade in human organs. In the US, the sale of human organs for any economical or other benefits is prohibited. However, this law has done little to stop the trade in human organs. There are a number of fundamental issues that the National Organ Transplant Act seems to have ignored. Banning of the trade in human organs has opened up channels that have enabled the black market for human organs to flourish. According to the World Health Organization,

The article “Need an Organ? It Helps to be Rich,” by Joy Victory informs readers of how medical systems work for those who are in need of an organ transplant. In the article, Victory talks about a 34-year-old man named Brian Shane Regions - who is in need of a heart transplant, but is not able to secure one because he is not insured. Therefore, not having insurance, Brian is put into an unfortunate situation because he is simply not getting any treatment for his heart failure. This is a great example of how patients without insurance could not be provided with an organ donor. Victory argues a variety of issues concerning how the organ donation system is unfair to certain people. A transplant cost a bundle amount of money, which leads to the rich only able to have the procedure done. While the poor cannot afford the cost of the transplant, creating an unfair situation for the less fortunate. The transplant centers can do anything as they please because they simply care more about the money. However, not all transplant centers treat their patients unfairly, several centers are truly able to support the uninsured patients in need of a transplant. It is simply unfair for the patients, who do not have enough money to pay for transplant and the medical systems are unethical.

An organ market will lead to exploitation and unfair advantages for the rich and powerful. It will creates injustice between the rich and the poor as the rich will get organs because of their money but to those who is less fortunate people will not be able to have access to these resources. Vulnerable people such as kids, less educated people, or people from third world countries will get exploited and harvested their organs for richer people. When organs are freely tradable, many extremely poor people, especially those who are struggling to survive, will be forced to sell parts of their bodies. Poverty and corruption are underlying themes behind seller giving up their organs as most donors see it as the only option to make money. For most

So in the organ black market, a person exchanging his or her organs for money is called a “seller”. The average seller in transplant tourism is between the ages of 31-40 and are living in extreme poverty. In the perspective of the seller, there is another example of dire desperation. These people hardly make enough money to survive. In a research study conducted by Syed Naqvi, M.D., in 2006 219 sellers from Pakistan were surveyed. He asked them about their monthly incomes. These were the

Since the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 prevents a monetary price from being placed on a donated organ, effective allocation mechanisms must be utilized. Allocation mechanisms must be accessed because the shortage of supply compared to the demand. In any market, allocation mechanisms rely on many factors but some include friendships, “under the table” payments, predicted profit, and personal biases.

“Organs” Satel insists, “are the rare trafficked good that saves lives.” ‘Yuan a Kidney?’ and ‘Financial Incentives for Organ Donation’ discuss opposing views of organ donation and trafficking. The National Kidney Foundation finds financial incentives for organ donation to be a form of exploitation, demeaning to society and all around unethical. Satel, however, holds a different perspective in the sense that if a citizen is informed and consenting to donating an organ to save another life for a monetary gain it could improve not only their welfare but the patient’s welfare as well. “Financial Incentives..” focuses strictly on a logical appeal; while “Yuan a Kidney?” is much more emotional while being logical. Satel provides the attention to donors as well as patients. NFK is speaking from a standpoint of legalities and ethics with no regards to donors as people willing to save a life, and little to patients in need of transplants.

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

Based upon figures from 2012, 95,000 Americans were on the waiting list for the most commonly transplanted organ, kidneys. That year only 16,500 kidney transplant operations were performed. The average wait time in the United States for a kidney transplant was 4.5 years. The demand continues to grow and so do the need for an ethical program to find a way to increase the supply of organs. This would help reduce the suffering that many needing transplants endure while they pray for a transplant.

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.

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

One of the biggest issues in today’s hospitals is the argument over the organ transplant industry.  Now that transplant surgery has become easier and more dependable in the past couple decades, rates of patients awaiting organs have been steadily increasing. Without enough supply, thousands of patients a year on the official transplant registry will die waiting for their new organ(s). To economists Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, they see this as just a simple “supply-and-demand gap with tragic consequences.” Many others, however, would argue that it’s a matter of  lacking incentives in the volunteer market or the decline in death rates with usable organs. When it comes down to solving the shortage of organ donations, there is one public health proposal that sparks major debate with policymakers and economists alike. That proposal poses the controversial question, should the organ transplant industry be transformed into a market in order to increase the supply of available organs? In several ways this would resolve the issue, but there are a handful of variables that point towards why this policy should not be put into place. If organ transplantation were turned into a market, there would be a massive influx in organ supply due to the new monetary incentive. Not to mention, organs would unfairly be more available to the wealthy, as well as major possibilities for debates regarding morality to spark from the policy.