Argument For Organ Transplantation

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.

Thousands of people in the United States are dying each year because of a failed kidney, and have no chance to receive one. In “Organ Sales Will Save Lives” by MIT student, Joanna MacKay argues against banning the sale of organs, but instead recommends legalizing and regulating the trade of human organs in order to try and save people’s lives. MacKay reports that in America alone, approximately 350,000 people struggle each year with kidney failure. Since there is no cure, and buying kidneys is currently illegal, this leads the person to search for other options that usually result in purchasing organs on the black market. MacKay states that a black market purchase allows the recipient to buy a fresh, healthy organ from a living donor without the agonizing process of waiting on a list (157-158). MacKay believes that both the recipient and donor would benefit in the legalization and regulation process and if this comes to pass, more organs would be made available for transplant and many people would get the chance to live another day.

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.

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

Organ donation has the power to change a life ending incident into a life giving one. Throughout the United States many patients are suffering due to the lack of a vital organ, because there is more demand than supply of organs, many patients die without ever receiving one. Although organ donation saves many lives, there have been questions in regards to ethics that surround it. People are even making the argument that it should not be practiced. Another question that has surfaced is, how can organ donation be improved in the United States so that people in need of organs can receive them at a high rate? Even though organ donation in the United States has received criticism due to ethical dilemmas such as priority distribution, contributing to illegal harvesting and alternative sources; the possibilities of saving lives and giving people a second chance outweighs the potential consequences it holds. Organ donation is one of the most important modern day medical marble that needs to be better utilized United States.

“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

Currently, there are over 120,000 Americans on the waiting list to receive an organ (Alter). This incredibly high number of people in need of an organ transplant is the tragic outcome of the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, which prohibited the sale of human organs and almost all forms of compensation (Monti). The act was originally intended to prevent exploitation of the poor, who found that selling their own organs to the wealthy was a quick and easy way to earn large amounts of money. Over the years, it became more evident that banning organ donor compensation actually discriminated against the poor rather than protected them, by ensuring that only the wealthy could afford such operations. Since the act went into effect, the demand for organs has greatly increased by a whopping 1,200% while the supply for organs has basically remained

It is an indisputable fact that under the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, there is a larger demand for organs than there is available supply. As a result, people in need of kidney or liver transplants die every year while waiting. Under the current system, the only way to receive an organ transplant is either by having a family member selflessly volunteer to donate theirs, or by being put on a waiting list to receive an organ from the recently deceased. To combat this lack of supply, some in need of transplants desperately turn to the black market, paying enormous sums of money for organs that were more than likely taken illegally. Others die waiting for a transplant that was never realistically going to happen in time. In essence, the gap between supply and demand for organs is causing both a loss in quantity and quality of lives. However, changing policy to allow payments to organ donors would drastically reduce this gap, therefore decreasing wait time for organs and saving lives. The crucial step that must be taken to save these lives is to repeal the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 which prohibits the sale of organs.

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.

Richard A. Epstein’s “Thinking the Unthinkable: Organ Sales” (2005) is an argument trying to convince people that selling human organs is acceptable in order to increase the availability for those in need of an organ transplant. Epstein says money will motivate more people to donate their organs to those in need. He also looks at the argument from the point of the recipient of the organ and argues that the expense of buying an organ will not increase the price of getting an organ transplant.

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).

Throughout history physicians have faced numerous ethical dilemmas and as medical knowledge and technology have increased so has the number of these dilemmas. Organ transplants are a subject that many individuals do not think about until they or a family member face the possibility of requiring one. Within clinical ethics the subject of organ transplants and the extent to which an individual should go to obtain one remains highly contentious. Should individuals be allowed to advertise or pay for organs? Society today allows those who can afford to pay for services the ability to obtain whatever they need or want while those who cannot afford to pay do without. By allowing individuals to shop for organs the medical profession’s ethical

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

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