Compensating Kidney Donors

It was only a matter of time before a businessman in Virginia saw a way to profit from the success of transplantation. In 1983 H. Barry Jacobs announced the opening of a new exchange through which competent adults could buy and sell organs. His failing was in his decision to use needy immigrants as the source of the organs (Pence 36). As a result Congress, passed the National Organ Transplant Act (Public Law 98-507) in 1984, which prohibited the sale of human organs and violators would be subjected to fines and imprisonment (“Donation Details”).

“Illegal trade in kidneys has risen to such a level that an estimated 10,000 black market operation involving purchased human organs now take place annually or more than one an hour” (The Guardian, 2012). People that are in the need of an organ and willing to participate in illegal activities will either send a broker or go directly to another country where people are lacking in the knowledge of the situation or have an extreme disability and buy an organ rom that individual. In most cases a broker will promise the seller a great amount of money, but in the end they will only receive a fraction of the money that was promised and for some they receive no money. If a broker cannot buy an organ they will steal one. “However, when the organ, like many other valuables that cannot be bought, it is stolen resulting in flagrant violation of human rights” (U.N.O.D.C, 2000). It is currently illegal to buy or sell human organ in the United States and many other countries. People involved with the operation of human trafficking will be charged with a trafficking offence. “For a trafficking offence to be established must be evidence of an illegal act (recruitment) followed by an illegal means (coercion) for the purpose of exploitation (organ harvesting), one in ten organ transplants are illegal” (U.N.O.D.C, 2000). Illegal sales of organs are increasing the rate of criminal

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.

Over the last few decades, the number of patients on organ waiting lists in the US has continued to soar way above the number of organ donor. In some cases, patients have died waiting for organs from donors. According to available statistics, more than 100,000 patients are in the US transplant list waiting for organ donors. On the other hand, only 20% of these patients are likely to receive a legitimate organ donor and the fate of the other 80% lies in the balance (Rattenni 20). This shortage in the life saving organ transplant has led to a surge in illegal human trafficking cartels and black market vendor ready to exploit the desperate situation of these patients. In some cases, there have been cases of living donor ready to sale their organs for cash rewards.

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.

After conducting extensive research I have concluded that for several reasons, congress should repeal the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984. This act outlaws the selling of human organs with a punishment of paying fifty thousand dollars, or five years in prison, or both. Repealing this act would promote more people to be donors, and less money being spent on medicines, and hospital care. Hand in hand with more lives being saved. Although there are certain doubts, and ways people could manipulate the system; the law should be repealed, and new laws put into place to regulate it.

Dying painfully in a hospital bed is not the way anyone wants to go. Unfortunately for many people, it is a reality. Thousands of people a year end up dying while waiting for an organ that could save their lives. While on the other side of the world, thousands of people die a year, but from infection when an organ is forcefully taken from them to sell on the black market. There are two sides of the organ donation list, and both can end in death. This paper will discuss the shortage of donated organs and the issues with the current donation system. It will also discuss the black market for transplant organs and possible solutions to viable organ shortage. The focus of this paper will be on transplant kidneys as they are the most desirable organ for buyers and sellers.

'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)

“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.

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.

Yet even though this system works so well in Iran, the rest of the world bans organ sales. Experts say that the market would be immoral. They state, for example, that it would exploit the poor, as most transplants would occur between poor donors and rich recipients, perhaps creating transplant tourism where rich people traveled to poor countries just to receive a transplant (Ghods & Savaj, 2006). The Iranian model addresses these problems very well – they forbid the transplantation of Iranian organs into foreigners, which eliminates the chances for transplant tourism. In addition, because the government pays for the purchasing of organs, both the poor and the rich have an equal chance of receiving transplants. Even though the majority of organ donors are poor, the majority of recipients are also poor (Ghods & Savaj, 2006).

Global organ shortage causes thousands of unwanted deaths because of a want for a kidney. Some people are not as lucky as Satel, who received one from a friend. Many organ sales are illicit due to corrupt brokers. Many donors are deceived because of the corrupt brokers. They may cheat patients of payment and or ignore the post-surgical needs.

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,

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