The Importance Of Organ Donation

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 authors believe that the solution to minimizing waitlists are to provide compensation to those donors. The authors argue that providing compensation will give people incentive to become donors. To support their argument, the authors examine Iran, a country in which donors are paid. In Iran, one must see if someone in their family is willing to donate their kidney, if they do not find a donor then they are to apply to a waitlist for a suitable deceased donor. The recipient also has the option to “apply to the national transplant association for a kidney from a willing donor who is paid for the kidney”(62). Due to this system, “Iran eliminated the entire backlog of kidney transplant patients” and has

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.

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 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

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

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

For this article critique, I chose to write about the New York Times article “Why People Don’t Donate Their Kidneys” by psychiatrist and lecturer Sally L. Satel. The opinion piece focused the more than 100,000 Americans waiting for a kidney donation, and why they are not receiving those donations. Even though demand from these patients is growing, the donation rate has flatlined. The author cites the inability to pay donors as the main source of the problem. Satel claims that by stigmatizing and disabling the act of rewarding organ donors, Americans lose valuable donations that could save lives.

Most organ programs appeal to the altruistic incentives of possible donors, however these donors who are willing to do such a selfless act are not high in numbers. Resulting in a shortage of organs for transplants, reducing the amount of lives that have the potential to be saved or enhanced to have better living conditions. Thus causing this issue to be looked at on a more serious note, and seek options to increase organ transplant rates. With this issue on the rise one incentive that is being debated is whether organ donors should receive compensation. As there are two sides to this argument whether compensation is ethical or unethical, due to several lives on the line, the act of recompense to an individual who decides to become an organ donor is highly

Innovative advances in the practice of medicine have increased the life span of the average American. This along with the growing population in the United States and has created a shortfall in the number of organs available for transplant today. The current system of allocation used to obtain organs for transplant faces difficulty because of two primary reasons according to Moon (2002). The two perceptions that stop potential organs donors are that the allocation criteria is unfair and favors certain members of society and/or that organs may be allocated to someone who has destroyed their organs by misuse (Moon, 2002). Many individuals decline to donate organs because anyone requiring an organ transplant is placed on a waiting list and it is possible that individuals who have destroyed their organs by their own actions or convicted criminals could receive donated organs before someone whose organs are failing through no fault of their own and positively contribute to society. When a celebrity or wealthy individual requires a transplant they are often viewed as "jumping" the waitlist but

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,

Many countries use implied consent when it comes to organ donations. The US uses informed consent, meaning that they require people to make an active declaration if they wish to donate. Countries using implied consent for organ donations show no large positive effects in shortening the waiting list. In the other hand, paying individuals for kidney donations would increase the supply of kidneys without increasing the overall cost of a kidney transplant. Many surgeons, politicians, doctors, and others argue that paying for organs is immoral because it involves the sale of body parts. Yet, the statement that payment for organs would be ineffective in eliminating the shortage of organs proves to be contradictory because of what we know about the supply and payment of other body parts in the medical field (ex: surrogate mothers & the US military). Cash for kidneys would also include a 3 month waiting period for those who wish to give up an organ. During this time individuals would have a chance to think over their decision which would ultimately prevent rash donations. The poor would benefit the most from this system because it would make transplant waiting time shorter and less

They conclude that “research shows that the underlying motivation of most paid kidney donors is poverty” and that “paid kidney donation is associated with depression, regret, and discrimination” (The State of the International Organ Trade, 2007). In other words, throwing money at the poor in exchange for their organs will not get them out of poverty. Offering a financial incentive program for organ donation will allow the rich to exploit the poor and deprive the poor from life-saving donation. The demand for organs will likely remain higher than the supply; therefore, prices for organs will become competitive and eliminate the chance for the poor to receive a transplant. Implementing financial compensation would only serve to shift the demographic of organ recipients away from those with the greatest need to those with the greatest wealth.

Organ donation is always a hard decision to make before you pass away, and for your loved ones to make after you have passed away. People often misinterpret how organ donation works. In order for someone to want to be an organ donor they have to be able to understand all the facts about it. Not all people realize how important being an organ donor is. Three steps that everyone should go through before you decide where you stand on organ donation are understanding the facts from myths, understand the process of organ donation, and read at least one story of how organ donation has changed someone’s life. (Organ Donation Myths, Ten Facts, Twenty-Five Years After, Understanding The Donation Process)