Compensation For Organ Donation

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

'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.

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.

“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.

More than 100,000 men, women and children in need of life-saving organ transplants, every 10 minutes another person is added to the national organ transplant waiting list and averages of 18 people die each day from the lack of available organs. (donatelife.net) Organ transplants are very important because they replace the damaged organ and help the body function once again. There are still huge shortages of organs, even after awareness and other ways of educating the public. Some Americans are open to donating but many more are against it or unaware of the process which leaves many without organs and dying every day. The ongoing debate is whether to give financial incentives to organ donors to promote organ donation which would put a price

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

Authorized compensation for organ donors have caused controversy around the world. Since there are no specific laws that prohibits compensation for organ donation; families have been damaged and torn apart due to the lack of information about the aftermath of a donation. In Manila, families see their bodies as a way out of poverty and this belief has passed down from the father to the mother to their children. Compensation in the case mentioned above might not be enough for someone who donates a liver or other organs. It can only be fair if it is done under fair circumstances. The recovery after the procedure needs to be a very important subject to talk about with both donor and recipient. Apparently, what is most important is just to save

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).

I want my audience to accept the fact that there is a problem of organ shortage that needs to be resolved. I also want my audience to understand that people need certain type of encouragement and at the time that we are living, monetary compensation will make a difference. A lot of people will step forward into organ donation if there is compensation in

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

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,

    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

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