Kidney Transplants

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.

'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)

Recently, over 90,000 American men, women, and children are waiting for new kidneys. However, only about 16,500 kidneys were donated for transplant operations to be performed. These show that quite simple high demand and low supplies. According to the Professor Mcnaught’s lecture, the cost of a kidney transplant runs about $250,000 and its bill goes up to $70,000 annually. Dialysis is even becoming more expensive and price-inelastic. To solve this high demand and low supplies situation that causes people die while they are waiting for organ donators, we have to find a way to increase the supply of organs that could reduce waiting times and deaths. The most effective way will be to provide compensation for organ donators; in other words, we

In the United States there are 122,365 people waiting for organs to be donated; of those 100,218, are waiting for a kidney transplant. The transplant list is so long that some patients wait up to 10 years to receive a kidney. These patients wait in agony for a kidney they may never receive. An article by Barbara Mantel affirms that the most common reasons for kidney transplant include: Hypertension, Diabetes mellitus, kidney stones, Inherited Kidney disease, and inflammatory effects of drug therapy for other diseases. The U.S Department of Health and Human Services records show that in 2012 there were 30% more deceased Kidney donors than living donors. The

There seems to be a catch-22 in which those who do not need kidney transplants and those who are poor or unable to access transplants easily are the ones most worried about the morality of paying for a kidney. Furthermore, those who pay for a kidney seem to justify it by either claiming: that selling a kidney is exploitative, that those who sell their kidneys will be reward in the afterlife, or by stating that they are helping the poor/helping donors after the surgery (Hamdy, 2012). There are also statements that claim that kidney donors leave the hospital quickly because they incredibly healthy (Hamdy, 2012). Essentially those in power have created a narrative that obscures their exploitation of marginalized individuals. By cloaking their purchase of a kidney as reverse exploitation, they obscure the reality of the situation; further they obscure the reality of a system that allows for the exploitation of the poor while preventing them access to organs when they need them (Hamdy, 2012). This situation reminds me of access to abortion in the U.S., in which abortion is deemed as amoral, blocking public access to funds. As Angela Davis writes, “"By 1977 the passage of the Hyde Amendment in Congress had mandated the withdrawal of federal funding for abortions, causing many state legislatures to follow suit. Black, Puerto Rican, Chicana and Native American Indian

Not only does reimbursement for organ donation dismantle moral beliefs, but it also takes advantage of the poor. Instead of benefitting the well-being and health of patients, compensation only benefits the government, donors and wealthy patients. In reality, “Prices keep going up and it’s becoming harder for patients because they can’t afford it...The people who are making a lot of money are the investors and the corporations” (Lopez, 2015, p. 3). As the prices for organ transplantation continues to increase, patients are forced to pay more for dialysis while waiting for an organ. If compensation were to begin, patients would also begin to bear new expenses to assist the reimbursement of donors. Ogilvie (2011) believes that, “Despite the good

Knowing the rate of supply and demand of organ donation helps in establishing a clear background about the issue. For instance, Monti (2009) explained the reality of supply and demand of kidneys. The supply of this organ coming from deceased and altruistic donors are not enough to support the demand of those individuals who are in need. Approximately there are 73,000 people who wait for kidney donations and 18 of those who are in the wait list will die by tomorrow. Accordingly, the list is being added by 6,000 individuals every year. An individual has to wait for five years before he/she can get an organ donation. The facts and figures presented by Monti shows that there is a big gap between the supply and demand of organ donations . The Center for Bioethics (2004) gave supplementary details on the issue of organ shortage. In their article “ethics of organ transplantation” they said that United Network for Organ Sharing or UNOS keeps a comprehensive figure on the present status of people who need organ transplants and presently there more than

In 2012, about 4,500 people were preventable recipients of their final breath, according to Gary Becker and Julio Elias in their article “Cash for Kidneys: The Case for a Market for Organs” (223). Why did these patients meet their inevitable demise earlier than possible? The answer lies within themselves, literally. These people passed away while waiting for a kidney transplant. To make matters worse, the waiting list to receive a kidney transplant has been on the rise exponentially since 1990; the number of transplants has only increased minimally. Although the great tragedy is undeniably getting worse, there is light at the end of the tunnel. As outlined by Becker and Elias in their article, if organ donors were compensated for organs, such as kidneys, the number of available organs would rise, more people would survive, and patients would pay less overall (223).

In the article, Kidney International, Drs. Eli and Amy Friedman say, "that as many as 100,000 people could be saved annually by introducing a regulated kidney market” (Clark np). Theoretically, this means that almost every individual on the national transplant waiting list could be saved in less than a year. A well-regulated, legal organ market is the solution to the shortage of organ supply. Most experts say $50,000 would be enough compensation for an organ (Kline np). The open organ market would be operated by the government (Kline np). The government would regulate the compensation to the donor. The compensation would ideally be covered by the patient’s insurance company or Medicare (Kline np). This solved the radical problem of recipients being exploited for money. The ideal solution would be that donors would come forward that no patient is left waiting on the waiting list (Kline np).

Organ donation in America faces a fundamental economic problem; the demand for organs far outweighs the supply of organ donors. In a health market government policy change is necessary to attempt to provide better healthcare and to save lives of Americans waiting for an organ transplant. According to the American Transplant Foundation, 18 people in the United States die every day after waiting months or even years for an organ transplant. In the United

Due to the growing needs of human organ transplant donors, many medical professionals have attempted to find means of encouraging the public to donate their organs. Therefore, some within the medical profession may suggested that compensation or incentives may help boost the number of organs donor, thus shortening the growing list of needed organs for transplant procedures. As a matter of fact, may individuals within this field consider this method to be ethical sound and efficient since it will encourage the donating of human organs of living and deceased patients (Cherry, 2009). Clearly, the reason why these medical professionals are striving to put this proposition into effect is because it could greatly lower the transplant waiting list. Hence it could possibly save the lives of individuals who are suffering from organ failure and have been

Not only does this proposed organ market target the poor, but it also turns a human life into a commodity. We are no longer seen as a physical and complex being, but rather as a sack of organs with a price tag attached. When speaking to Monir Moniruzzaman, he states that even though bought kidneys may save lives, that “if you buy it from the market, it is a product, a commodity” (Resnick 6). By selling an organ, we infringe upon a person’s right to a fulfilling life and instead watch people as they are "picked

Suppliers primarily being poor will disproportionately suffer, while the rich counterparts benefits off poor people’s organs, since wealthier families can afford to purchase organs from the market; contrary to legalization (Pietrobon, 2016). Furthermore, worst-off groups do not have health insurance, and receive no benefits from the market (Pietrobon, 2016). On the other hand, in support of the market, dialysis is costly; therefore transplantation will not be such a financial reach (Pietrobon, 2016). As a matter of fact, dialysis has a 45% survival rate, while transplant patients have an 87% survival rate, and people who never started dialysis live longer than a patient on dialysis (Pietrobon, 2016). Too, patients who receive a free kidney cannot afford the procedure to get the kidney physically placed in their body (Pietrobon, 2016). Economically deficient people, either recipient or donor will face challenges merely because of monetary

During my first clinical rotation I was assigned a patient who, down to his last kidney, was living with end stage renal disease. I noticed quickly that this man, one of ethnical minority, relied on his family members to give him information and advice pertaining to his treatment, as he himself seemed ignorant to his own medical problems. I found his case fascinating, as he not only had one kidney, but he was also suffering many other debilitating medical crisis’, all brought on by his failing renal system. I distinctly remember wondering why transplantation was not being discussed, or if it was even an option for him. My interest led me to discovering a disproportionate disparity among those who receive live donor kidney transplants, referred to as LDKT, in the United States.

Citizens of impoverished nations or regions are frequently tempted to betray one of their kidneys to the black market. Of course, everything comes with a cost, but sometimes not everything comes for a proper price. The average buyer spends up to $150,000 while the average donor gets $5,000 (1). This process makes it harder for the poor to afford an organ. So even though organ transplants can save countless lives, it can only save wealthy lives. This is just another way for the rich to buy themselves a better life at the expense of the poor. There are thus many types of organs that can be donated like kidneys, lungs, heart, liver, and so on, but there are simply not enough donated organs for everyone. If there is a legal demand for product, then there has to be a supply to fill that demands. For example, in the