Compensating Organ Donors

My grandfather was a lucky one, though he had to wait 5 years until his luck was fully granted. He was diagnosed with sever kidney failure, spent 5 years on dialysis, then was blessed with the option of getting a kidney… twice. Though the first time he had to reject because of the health of his wife-after her death, he was called once more with the option of having a kidney transplant. However, my grandfather is an exception, most people do not get called once, let alone twice, for the option of receiving a kidney. As of October 25th 2013, about 100,000 people were waiting for a new kidney in the United States. (SCU) Every day, 18 people from that list die along with 10 others being added. As of October 25th, 2013, out of the 100,000 people waiting for a new kidney while only about 10,000 received one; that means 90,000 people are either rolled over to the next year, or die waiting. The marvelousness of kidney donations, compared to other organs donations, is that each person is born with two and can sustain a healthy life with just one; simple facts such as this is what has driven the black market kidney trade to flourish. (CBSNEWS) However, if this is the case then why aren’t more people donating? Is it because they are not getting something in return? Why donate for free when someone on the black market will pay 10,000 dollars? The main arguments against black market organ donations, not limited to kidneys, is that people do not know the risks- yet if someone is

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 within my power to drastically change his circumstances, but I do not want to give that man a gift if he does not deserve it.” (Smith, 2008) In the movie seven pounds, the actor, made the choice to sacrifice his organs for the good, he felt that he had nothing else to live for, so instead he would give life to someone else who rightfully deserved it. For years, humans have voluntarily donated their organs to caring and loving individuals. They donated freely and without compensation they gave and expected nothing in return. Now, we have individuals who desire to impose upon this freedom, by offering the exchange of organs for money. The selling of organs for monetary value is wrong, it increases the amount of organ trafficking within the black market, it does not create a just weight for those with lower amounts of income, and it is not safe, many people will place their lives at risk all for just a dime.

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

'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)

In this paper I will be using the normative theory of utilitarianism as the best defensible approach to increase organ donations. Utilitarianism is a theory that seeks to increase the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (Pense2007, 61). The utilitarian theory is the best approach because it maximizes adult organ donations (which are the greater good) so that the number of lives saved would increase along with the quality of life, and also saves money and time.

There are 112 thousand people on the organ transplant list and 22 people die every day because they cannot find a match ("Organ Donation Statistics", 2017). In 1984, under the National Organ Transplant Act, America outlawed the buying and selling of organs. If caught selling organs illegally, those involved shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both (Prohibition of Organ Purchases, 2011). With organizations like Planned Parenthood selling the body parts of aborted fetuses, the compensation of organs has been compared to prostitution. (Gebelhoff, 2015). If organ donors begin being compensated for their gifts of life, the Black Market organ trafficking will increase due to supply and demand of organs which in return creates a higher victim rate related to the black market. Offering money for organs can be viewed as an attempt to coerce economically disadvantaged Americans to participate in organ donation even though these groups of people have been shown to be less likely to be candidates, monetary incentives for organs could be characterized as exploitation (National Kidney Foundation, 2003). The Compensation of organ donation is unethical due to the acts by organizations such as Planned Parenthood, black market increases along with acts of cruelty towards unexpecting victims, and the increase in costs to perform the transplants.

Many suggest that offering incentives or some form of monetary reimbursement for organs is likely to increase the quantity of organ donors and make the entire process easier for both donors and recipients. The severe organ shortage has generated such desperation that people all over the world have begun to resort to unethical practices to obtain the priceless organs.

The National Organ Transplant Act, signed into law in 1986, prohibits the sale of human organs. However, as over 100,000 Americans are currently awaiting an organ transplants, recently the idea of compensating organ donors has begun to be seriously considered. Opponents of the idea to compensate donors claim that this will lead to a situation where the wealthy use economic coercion to obtain needed organs from the poor, while supporters point to several methods which can regulate the system of compensation to ensure fair treatment of donors. Maryland is presently considering the idea of allowing donors to be compensated for their organs and we believe that under a strictly regulated system, organ donor compensation can be carried out ethically and safely for all involved.

How is it morally unacceptable for donors to receive compensation which can regulate their life after donation? Donors usually have to limit physical activities after surgery for several weeks. Most people cannot afford to take time off from work without a compensation.

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?

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.

    Today, medical operations save lives around the world, a feat that surely would surprise our ancestors. Many operations replace defective organs with new ones; for new organs to be ready to be implanted there need to be organ donors. We are not so advanced a society that we can grow replacement organs. Thousands of organ donors in the United States every year are seen as doing the most noble of deeds in modern civilization, and most of the time death has to occur before the organ can be used. Now, though, some are suggesting that organ donors—or their beneficiaries—should be paid for their donations. This should not happen, as it creates a strain on the already tight national budget, forces

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.