Every ten minutes, another person is added to the active wait list for an organ donation. That is six people every hour, 144 every day, and 1008 every week. Approximately 120 thousand people need an organ transplant to survive. Of all of those people, only 79 thousand people are on an active wait list, while only 20 thousand transplantations have been completed this year. There are not enough donors to meet the current organ demand, and of those that do donate organs, the costs incurred by the donor do not equal the benefits. The current organ donation system operates under subpar economical standards, and should be revised to allow trade of organs on the free market.
The best way to go about increasing the supply of organs able to be transplanted is to provide some sort of compensation. Tabarrok takes the stance that those who donate organs should be among the first to receive them, should the need arise. Tabarrok calls this a, “no-give no-take” rule. Organs should at the foremost be considered private property, owned by the prospective owner, not as a, “national resource,” (Tabarrok). Postrel suggests legal financial restitution for the organ donor. Such restitution could come by way of tax credit, or simply a sum of money. In today’s day and age, directed donations are refused, where it is viewed as, “unfair” for those still waiting (Postrel). Instead both patients should die because there were not enough organs on the market for everyone involved. A market where organs
Today we are in great need of a solution to solve the problem of the shortage of human organs available for transplant. The website for Donate Life America estimates that in the United States over 100 people per day are added to the current list of over 100,000 men, women, and children that are waiting for life-saving transplants. Sadly enough, approximately 18 people a day on that list die just because they cannot outlive the wait for the organ that they so desperately need to survive. James Burdick, director of the Division of Transplantation for the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services confirms, “The need for organ transplants continues to grow and this demand continues to outpace the supply of transplantable organs”. The
In the United States, there are currently 116,608 people in need of a lifesaving organ transplant, and 75,684 people that are currently active waiting list candidates (HRSA, 2017). Between January and September 2017, there have only been 12,211 organ donors (HRSA, 2017) which is far less that the current demand for lifesaving organs. The shortage of donors could lead to an individual looking for outside sources such as the black market to find their lifesaving organ. Offering incentives to persons who chose to donate their organs or those of a deceased loved one is important because it could stop the illegal selling of organs, save the life of someone in need of an organ transplant and benefit both the donor and recipient.
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.
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.
The introduction of organ donation to society has since been a groundbreaking medical discovery and life-saving procedure, portrayed in myths dating back to Ancient times, before the 16th century. Early performed procedures we’re primarily successful skin grafts and transplants among individuals in need. It wasn’t until the early 1900’s that doctors had been documented performing experimental and risky transplants from animal organs to save human patients suffering from renal failure. Though successful, none of these patients lived more than a few days after the transplants. It wasn’t until December 23, 1954, that the first truly successful kidney transplant, from a living donor, was achieved. Dr. Joseph
More than 110,000 people are on waiting lists for organs they may not ever get in time (mantel). This has caused an organ black market in which people are trading their or other individuals’ organs for illegal money. In case making criminals out of normal people. In 2009, the FBI arrested a Brooklyn rabbi for illegal organ trade, he was buying organs from overseas for a mere ten thousand dollars and selling here in the black market for upwards of one hundred sixty thousand (Krauthammer). An organ trade of some sort needs to become legal and people need chances to be compensated for their organs. Also with the market becoming legal, patients will be in better hands pre-operation and post-operation.
Since the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 prevents a monetary price from being placed on a donated organ, effective allocation mechanisms must be utilized. Allocation mechanisms must be accessed because the shortage of supply compared to the demand. In any market, allocation mechanisms rely on many factors but some include friendships, “under the table” payments, predicted profit, and personal biases.
Currently, there are over 120,000 Americans on the waiting list to receive an organ (Alter). This incredibly high number of people in need of an organ transplant is the tragic outcome of the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, which prohibited the sale of human organs and almost all forms of compensation (Monti). The act was originally intended to prevent exploitation of the poor, who found that selling their own organs to the wealthy was a quick and easy way to earn large amounts of money. Over the years, it became more evident that banning organ donor compensation actually discriminated against the poor rather than protected them, by ensuring that only the wealthy could afford such operations. Since the act went into effect, the demand for organs has greatly increased by a whopping 1,200% while the supply for organs has basically remained
It is an indisputable fact that under the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, there is a larger demand for organs than there is available supply. As a result, people in need of kidney or liver transplants die every year while waiting. Under the current system, the only way to receive an organ transplant is either by having a family member selflessly volunteer to donate theirs, or by being put on a waiting list to receive an organ from the recently deceased. To combat this lack of supply, some in need of transplants desperately turn to the black market, paying enormous sums of money for organs that were more than likely taken illegally. Others die waiting for a transplant that was never realistically going to happen in time. In essence, the gap between supply and demand for organs is causing both a loss in quantity and quality of lives. However, changing policy to allow payments to organ donors would drastically reduce this gap, therefore decreasing wait time for organs and saving lives. The crucial step that must be taken to save these lives is to repeal the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 which prohibits the sale of organs.
Organ transplantation is a term that most people are familiar with. When a person develops the need for a new organ either due to an accident or disease, they receive a transplant, right? No, that 's not always right. When a person needs a new organ, they usually face a long term struggle that they may never see the end of, at least while they are alive. The demand for transplant organs is a challenging problem that many people are working to solve. Countries all over the world face the organ shortage epidemic, and they all have different laws regarding what can be done to solve it. However, no country has been able to create a successful plan without causing moral and ethical dilemmas.
First, I will take you through the problems of not having enough people donate their organs. Due to the shortage, there has been a rising number of people on the waiting list. This also increases the amount of patient death while on the waiting list. Over 95,000 people were on the waiting list in 2006 in the United States and the number of deaths, while on the waiting list, were over 6,300. These numbers are steadily rising as I write this paper. Not enough organs has deprived many patients of a new and better life. It has also caused the prices of alternative medical care to go up. (NCBI) The organ shortage causes more and more deaths each year. If more people don’t donate, the organ shortage is only going to get widen. There will always be an organ shortage, but we could bring the amount up. Not only does a person perish while waiting for an organ donation, their family is grief stricken.
The first argument for this position expands upon the statistics already mentioned. There is no question that many more organs are needed than are available. Indeed, it is not merely organs that can be transplanted. One's corneas and tissues can also be harvested to improve lives, if not to save them. Now it can be objected that there is already a process in place for organ donation. People can volunteer to be organ donors. This is of course true. In fact, in some cases organs-such as kidneys and lungs-can be transplanted even if the donor is not deceased. However, the gap between the organs available through voluntary donation and the need for life-saving
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
When receiving a driver’s license in the United States, there is a section on the back in which it asks if the licensed driver would like to become an organ donor. Most people overlook this option. Nothing is really pushed forth for people wanting to become organ donors. Today in the U.S, thousands of people need organ transplants. Unfortunately, there is a growing shortage of donated organs. Many people die every year because there are not enough organs ready for transplant. Resulting, there is an extremely long waiting list of people hoping that they will be the next ones to get called to receive an organ. For a lot of those people, they die waiting on that list. If more people would
Svenaeus, Fredrik. "The body as a gift, resource or commodity? Heidegger and the ethics of organ transplantation." Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7, no. 2 (2010): 163-172.