What Is Satel's Financial Incentives For Organ Donation?

Every day some dies after waiting years on a transplant list. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 says that in the United States, the sale of organs is illegal. Some believe this act may be preventing thousands of people from getting the organs that will save their lives. The truth is every day someone dies and their organs could be used to help others and everyday a life of one and the livelihood of another could be saved. The reasons for allowing the sale of organs is very simple to understand. It can help others financially, save money on medical expenses and most importantly, save lives. Critiques believe this would be a mistake causing spur of the moment decisions, and illegal obtain these organs for sale. With the use of regulation, these doubts can be laid to rest. Before the problem can be solved, the problem has to be identified.

There are a lot of people in this world that are going through organ failure. The National Kidney Foundation even found, “Every fourteen minutes someone is added to the kidney transplant list”. Statistically speaking, that is a great deal of people in need of a vital organ. The author Joanna MacKay talks about the need for organ donations in her article “Organ Sales Will Save Lives”. MacKay disputes her case briefly when stating her thesis in the first paragraph. She gives the audience her opinion on how the selling of organs should be built to become legal. Throughout the text she touches on the black market selling of kidneys. She also incorporates how other third world countries have allowed this practice of organ sales. The article includes her insight on what would happen if organ sales would be legalized and how it would be regulated.

Many of those who choose to sell their organ is either forced or manipulated by wealth. It is more likely for a poorer citizen from a developing country to be willing to supply n organ for a member of the upper class or for someone who can afford it, either through directly or through a broker. Brokers will do what every it takes to get what is being demanded. Some of the donors involved in organ trafficking are victims of body snatching or involuntary organ donations. Brokers will have the individual drugged and their organ removed without their consent to the procedure, they are also known for kidnaping poor and take whatever organ they desire and leave them there for dead. “Although estimates of trafficked persons are in their millions relatively few are identified” (Steinfall, T.M and Weitzer, R., 2011). Today brokers work with hospital staffs to locate poverty-stricken individuals to sell their organs for money. Some doctors often target children of poor countries in sell their organ in the black-market. In spite of its awareness, trafficking is still increasing. Trafficking a human organ is a growing profitable enterprise much like the unauthorized markets for weapons, humans, and drugs. Without the enforcement of laws against organ trafficking it is easier for an organ trafficker to buy and sell human organ increasing criminal

The debate has raged on for some time now concerning the ethical issues surrounding the trade in human organs. In the US, the sale of human organs for any economical or other benefits is prohibited. However, this law has done little to stop the trade in human organs. There are a number of fundamental issues that the National Organ Transplant Act seems to have ignored. Banning of the trade in human organs has opened up channels that have enabled the black market for human organs to flourish. According to the World Health Organization,

“It is within my power to drastically change his circumstances, but I do not want to give that man a gift if he does not deserve it.” (Smith, 2008) In the movie seven pounds, the actor, made the choice to sacrifice his organs for the good, he felt that he had nothing else to live for, so instead he would give life to someone else who rightfully deserved it. For years, humans have voluntarily donated their organs to caring and loving individuals. They donated freely and without compensation they gave and expected nothing in return. Now, we have individuals who desire to impose upon this freedom, by offering the exchange of organs for money. The selling of organs for monetary value is wrong, it increases the amount of organ trafficking within the black market, it does not create a just weight for those with lower amounts of income, and it is not safe, many people will place their lives at risk all for just a dime.

'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)

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.

Joy Victory 's "Need an Organ? It Helps to Be Rich" provides great factual evidence to support her main claim that the rich have more advantages for acquiring an organ than do the poor and uninsured. The extensive factual evidence includes a personal account of an uninsured organ candidate, statistics and multiple expert testimonies to indicate that many variables hinder the poor and uninsured from receiving an organ. One of the most important variables is the socio-economic status of the potential organ recipient because statistics and evidence indicate receiving organs is determined primarily on a financial basis. Also, the article suggests the uninsured and poor not only suffer from physical ailments but also from a lack of hope for obtaining an organ. One of the ways Victory uses factual evidence is by narrating a personal account of an uninsured 34- year-old who is not only suffering physically but also suffering from a lack of hope for obtaining an organ. Brian Regions, the uninsured 34- year-old, is physically in agony every day with congestive heart failure and is consistently facing insufficient health care (Victory 736). As Victory accurately points out, Regions is not the only uninsured individual who is at risk for his expensive physical problems. It is also reported that there are thousands of others who are in physical agony with incurable heart damage (Victory 736). Without future heart support and financial intervention, Regions and many others may

The article “Need an Organ? It Helps to be Rich,” by Joy Victory informs readers of how medical systems work for those who are in need of an organ transplant. In the article, Victory talks about a 34-year-old man named Brian Shane Regions - who is in need of a heart transplant, but is not able to secure one because he is not insured. Therefore, not having insurance, Brian is put into an unfortunate situation because he is simply not getting any treatment for his heart failure. This is a great example of how patients without insurance could not be provided with an organ donor. Victory argues a variety of issues concerning how the organ donation system is unfair to certain people. A transplant cost a bundle amount of money, which leads to the rich only able to have the procedure done. While the poor cannot afford the cost of the transplant, creating an unfair situation for the less fortunate. The transplant centers can do anything as they please because they simply care more about the money. However, not all transplant centers treat their patients unfairly, several centers are truly able to support the uninsured patients in need of a transplant. It is simply unfair for the patients, who do not have enough money to pay for transplant and the medical systems are unethical.

“Altruism is the sole legitimate impulse behind organ donation” (…..), the onetime best U.S best seller further argued that altruistic acts are important qualities of human relationships in a society. Satel carefully cleared doubts of the notion that compensating donors will commodify the body and dehumanize us, she believes that its better to legalize organ donation than allow people suffer and die.

So in the organ black market, a person exchanging his or her organs for money is called a “seller”. The average seller in transplant tourism is between the ages of 31-40 and are living in extreme poverty. In the perspective of the seller, there is another example of dire desperation. These people hardly make enough money to survive. In a research study conducted by Syed Naqvi, M.D., in 2006 219 sellers from Pakistan were surveyed. He asked them about their monthly incomes. These were the

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 legalization of organ sales has been proposed as a solution to two distinct problems. The first is the problem of illegal organ trafficking and the second is the problem of inadequate supplies of organs available for transplants. Gregory (2011) outlined the case for legalizing organ sales by arguing that the current shortage of organs fuels a black market trade that benefits nobody except criminals. He further argues that such a move would add organs to the market, thereby saving the lives of those who would otherwise die without a transplant, while delivering fair value to the person donating the organ. There are a number of problems with the view that legalizing the organ trade is beneficial. Such a move would exacerbate negative health outcomes for the poor, strengthening inequality, but such a move would also violate any reasonable standard of ethics, by inherently placing a price on one's life and health. This paper will expand on these points and make the case that we should not allow people to pay for organs.

This article holds that under certain circumstances, people should be allowed to donate their body parts to those who are in need. Three metaphors are presented to support the thesis. The gift metaphor holds that there is a general consensus that the body is a gift hence it is morally acceptable to donate them to people in need as a gift. The resource metaphor states that the state, authorities and the medical fraternity tend to perceive the body as a resource. The commodity metaphor holds that body organs are acutely scarce a situation that creates an extremely high demand from potential donors who are equally desperate to donate them to those in need. These metaphors suggest that donation of body parts to those in need is not only morally justifiable but also legally acceptable. It is very rational to donate a body part when the donor is well-informed that the transplant means giving life to another and that no suffering result from it. Organs are so valuable to be wasted because individuals neither think about the possibility of living after a transplant of after death.

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.