The For An Anonymous Donor Program

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.

'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)

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

The shortage of organ transplants has been an ongoing crisis for years; the growing list of patients awaiting transplants has no end in sight, and the number of people dying while they waste away on the waiting list is not going to go down unless something changes.Society has turned away from alternatives to our archaic organ donation program, but there are other options available.The transplant community and society as a whole need to step back and rethink--to adopt a more open-minded views on organs as a resource in order to save lives and make meaningful changes to the national transplant program.

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.

The allocation of scarce resources is an ongoing issue in healthcare today. The scarcity of many specific interventions include beds in the intensive care unit, donor organs, and vaccines during a pandemic influenza are widely acknowledged as an extensive issue in healthcare ethics. The allocation of scarce resources is the determination of how to equally and fairly use scarce medical resources available in a healthcare environment. This paper will focus on donor organs for transplantation and the ethical dilemmas associated with donation/transplantation. Organ shortage is the greatest challenge facing the field of organ transplantation in today’s world (Saidi, R., & Kenan, S., 2014). Ethical principles and regulation requirements often overlap.

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.

No one wants to voluntarily sign up for an unnecessary surgery, which is why there is a five to ten year wait limit for an organ donation. The New York Times Article “Test Incentives for Organ Donations – There’s No Reason Not To,” written by Sally Satel, states that in order to raise the number of donations, people should be rewarded (Satel). Based on the statistics Satel provides, she says altruism is not producing enough donations. Instead, she believes the government should offer some form of incentive to lure people into doing a good deed (Satel). Satel’s article does develop solid points to teach readers about her topic effectively while simultaneously providing evidence to endorse her argument. She gets her purpose across by

One of the greatest issues in the medical community around the world is the lack of donor organs. Every year, thousands of people in the US alone will die from organ failure. There are just simply not enough donor organs for everyone who needs one to receive it. What if this was no longer an issue? At the surface, this sounds like the Utopia everyone should strive for, but there is currently no solution.

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

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,

Every thirty minutes someone gets added to the waiting list for an organ transplant (‘Frequently Asked Questions”). Not only that, but the number of patients being added to the waiting list is growing larger than the number of donors (“Organ Donation Statistics”). Many people are in the need of some kind of organ donation, so anyone who donates can help to save many lives. Organ donation is also such a great way to give back to people. Another thing is that to donate an organ a person does not have to pay money (“Organ Donation FAQ’s”). The only part that costs money is for the funeral if they are a deceased donor (“Organ Donation FAQ’s”).

    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