Organ Donation : An Ethical And Effective Way Of Ethnic

Therefore, in 2009, organ transplants became a demand everywhere so abruptly that countless nationalities began selling their organs in return for money (HRSA 1). Eighty-one percent of commercial living donors (CLDs) in Egypt spent their “Kidney money” within five months after their donation (Budiani-Saberi

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.

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

In 1983 Dr H Barry Jacobs, a physician from Virginia, whose medical license had been revoked after a conviction for Medicare mail-fraud, founded International Kidney Exchange, Ltd. He sent a brochure to 7,500 American hospitals offering to broker contracts between patients with end-stage-renal-disease and persons willing to sell one kidney. His enterprise never got off the ground, but Dr Jacobs did spark an ethical debate that resulted in hearings before a congressional committee headed by Albert Gore, Jr., then a representative from the state of Tennessee. The offensive proposal for kidney sales led to the National Organ Transplant Act to become law in

Organ donations not only save lives but also money and time. If organ donations became prevalent the organ recipient would no longer need dialysis. Since there is no need for dialysis the cost to use the machine would lessen; this means that the cost of equipment would decrease, saving the hospital and insurance company’s money. More lives would be saved as well as benefit from those that no longer need an organ. In the book titled “Elements of Bioethics” adult organ transplants are only that have medical insurance. If organs are taken from recently deceased the cost for those that has no medical coverage was lessen. The process of organ transplantation is life changing and time is crucial. With shorter waiting time it would put ease on the person’s heart to know that this lifesaving event would happen sooner rather than later. In addition, when the organ is taken from the recently deceased the risk would be eliminated from

There are a lot of different things that are going on in this world today that keep people from doing right by God. People need to know that the selling of the organs can make things worst in the country that can cause lots of problem for people who do not have the money to pay the price for organs. It comes a time that if someone needs an organ real bad to help save their life and do not have the money to pay for the organ, what will happen then. There would be people who would like for people to be able to just donate organs so they can help save lives in our country without looking for something in return. People can make a lot of different in our children life if they see that we as adults are doing something positive in the world makes them want to follow in our footsteps and love and care for everyone knows matter what the situation is looking like. People feel that if the selling of the organs would become legal to do, the only people who would be able to afford to buy organs would be the ones who has lots of money and want miss a dime when buying organs. “Being able to pay for an organ, would give an unfair disadvantage to those who may need the transplant more urgently but don’t have the money to offer. Being that there is limited number of organs from dying patients, and limited organs that can be donated from living patients.” (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid)

“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

Kishore begins his paper by discussing the high demands for organ donation. By doing this Kishore illustrates that donation through waiting lists and from deceased individuals does not fill the needs of our population, resulting in around 17 people per day dying while waiting for a transplant. Kishore then discusses organs acquired through donation, which is widely regarded as an altruistic process. However, Kishore demies this notion by stating that donation of organs is not as altruistic as it seems. When someone donates their organ it does not go to the person more in need or most deserving but typically to someone known by the donor, to fulfill their own desire to not loose that person. Kishore even challenges anonymous donation stating that it is typically motivated by an attempt to satisfy one’s own needs, all donation is tainted by one’s own desires and are not truly altruistic. For Kishore these conventional methods of acquiring organs accept the idea that a recipient may benefit at the expense of another and that a donor may forfeit their bodily integrity. By accepting these two ideas, Kishore believes that selling organs should therefore be

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).

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.

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 realization of organ donation issue from a moral aspect comes through many different prospects depending on the ethical factors. The controversy comes when we want decided, which the sides are more ethical? Where is the right or wrong? What is the underlying value? Charles Krauthammer, in his article, "Yes, let's pay for the devices" focus on; whether that’s the human right to pay, or to pay for donate organs. “Penn State plans to pay $ 300 for people to donate their organs’ (Patterns for college writing), the Pennsylvania plane has two aspects first to provide more organs part as needed. Second, it does contribute to pay part of funeral expenses for poor families. Krauthammer introduced 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,

Finding a way to increase supply of organs would reduce wait times and deaths. Some people use black market in some other places to pay for live donors or for organs from cadavers to reduce their waiting time. Supply of organs depend on the price above the cost of the surgery, and because of that supply curve has backward L-shape. Incentive can be any material gain or valuable consideration for donors, people who give organs. They can take number of forms and one of them is financial. The idea of financial incentives is considered as solution for organs shortage on the market. Financial incentive for organs donation can be accomplished by following approaches: direct payment of a sum of money to donors, reimbursement of expenses, form of “donor

According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), American citizens are more likely to receive organs of non-citizens than vice versa; "As a percentage, every year, U.S. citizens receive more organs than they donate" (Vedantam, 2). Also, UNOS limits the number of transplants allotted to non-citizens to no more than five percent of available organs; however, no limits on donations are made (Vedantam, 2). These facts indicate that Americans are benefiting from the organ donations of