Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Compensation on organ donation
The effects of organ donation on society
Financial compensation for organ donation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Compensation on organ donation
Bone marrow is a soft substance found on the interior of bones where blood cells are produced (NIH). Bone marrow transplants have become an advanced procedure in today’s medical field, and are an important instrument in saving the lives of many people. However, the number of willing donation is dwindling, matches are less likely to donate, so many people go without the life saving transplants they need. To turn this effect around there has been suggestion of compensation for stranger-patient bone marrow matches. The reality of the current situation is that with the incentive of compensation, matches will be more likely to donate, and more lives will be saved. So to put is simply, bone marrow donors should be compensated. “Every year, the …show more content…
federal government spends tens of millions of dollars on programs that match about 5,000 patients with strangers — and thousands of people still die every year for want of a donor.”(Rowes) Offering compensation will bring about many people willing to donate, resulting in more lives save. And this compensation would not come form the patient or the family of the patient, it would be supplied by charitable organizations; with this system no additional financial stress is added to the patient and all people, regardless of financial circumstances, will receive adequate medical care. However, the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) does not allow compensation for donations such as these; compensation in any form can send all parties involved to prison (Rowes). This is more applicable to non-regenerable organs, such as kidneys and livers. The organization fears that people will begin putting themselves at risks giving away their needed organs because of financial instability. But, bone marrow regenerates in our bodies, and while an unpleasant procedure, is not life threatening. Bone marrow can be viewed as “immature blood cells,” the NOTA intentionally excluded blood donation, and compensation is completely legal (Rowes). When compensation is involved in medical affairs such as this, it is the worry of some, that truthfulness about donors’ medical histories can sometimes be deceptive (Petersdorf).
However, we have the advanced medical technology to test for majority of transmittable diseases, and all proper testing and protocol would be followed to ensure for the safety of all involved. Along with the concern of safety between donor and patient there is the concern from an ethical stand point. (Petersdorf). Is it ethical to pay someone for a potion of their body? This brings back the fact that compensation for blood donation is legal and actively used, and again bone marrow are “immature blood cells” which regenerate. This part of the body grows back and can really help a lot of people suffering from diseases like, leukemia, and sickle cell anemia (NIH). So shouldn’t the real question of ethics become, Why are we with holding compensation if it can potentially save more lives? In today’s medical field we are advanced enough to preform incredible, life altering surgeries which can change an individual’s life forever. What is not in our power, however, is having the ability to provide patients with specific organs, body tissue, blood, or bone marrow; this is the power of the donors. If compensation is the way more lives are being saved then all else is beside the
point.
Organ sales and donation are a controversial topic that many individuals cannot seem to agree upon. However, if someone close; a family member, friend, or someone important in life needed a transplant, would that mindset change? There are over one hundred and nineteen thousand men, women, and children currently waiting on the transplant list, and twenty-two of them die each day waiting for a transplant (Organ, 2015). The numbers do not lie. Something needs to be done to ensure a second chance at life for these individuals. Unfortunately, organ sales are illegal per federal law and deemed immoral. Why is it the government’s choice what individuals do with their own body? Organ sales can be considered an ethical practice when all sides of the story are examined. There are a few meanings to the word ethical in this situation; first, it would boost the supply for the
Satel starts her essay with an appeal to emotion, detailing the shortage of organ transplants and the deaths that result. She emphasizes her personal struggle and desperation over the need of a kidney transplant. Unable to discover a match and dialysis soon approaching, she “wondered about going overseas to become a “transplant tourist”, but getting a black market organ seemed too risky.”(Satel, 128) She argues for a change in the United States donor system policy to mimic the European system of implied consent. Satel also argues for the implementation of an incentive system to compensate donors for their organs, in order to increase the amount of available donors in the system. Her argument has insignificant weaknesses in comparison to her strongly supported and validated points.
Paying people for their bone marrow can be very dangerous for the patients receiving the marrow. Yes, there are many test done on the donor before the process begins. But the history paper can be altered. How would the hospital know everyone history? And who’s telling the truth. Making it known that a person can get paid for something a person’s body produces itself. In the world today, people will do anything for money. Even if it means risking theirs or someone else’s live. People donate now because they want to help, so there’s no need to lie about their history, put the patience in no danger. In CQ Researcher, written by Jeff Rowes, “NOTA forbids the sale of solid
...ne article, The Troubling Shortage Of Organ Donors In The U.S., makes it well known that there is a huge shortage of organ donors throughout the united states. It emphasizes that the need for kidneys is bigger than the need for other organs. The number of people needed a kidney is triple the amount of the people that are receiving the kidneys. The article states, “Now the United Network for Organ Sharing is considering changing the rules for kidneys to be more like hearts, matching younger donors with younger recipients and also giving priority to the healthier patients” (Siegel). This view point will help defend my argument on seeing that we need to find a way to solve organ shortages throughout the united states. I argue that everyone should be a priority patient, and they should find a way to solve organ shortages, that way everyone would be a priority patient.
...uld be unmoral and unethical to carry out. Even with the technology available today, the humanistic nature of people to be greedy will overcome their kindheartedness to give the gift of life to one another. The resale of human organs from living donors should continue to remain illegal around the world.
A transplanted kidney can last a person their whole lifetime yet in the greatest country of the world, the government bans the selling of organs. This leads to thousands of citizens desperate to find a cure for themselves or a loved one. A solution to reduce our supply and demand gap would be to pay our donors. By paying our donors, this would increase the supply of kidneys tremendously. People living in extreme poverty are willing to put so much on the line for money. People in third world countries are accepting as little as $1,000 for a kidney just so they can supply their family with some food and necessities. This black market of organ trading needs to be stopped but we should not ask a patient to accept death easily. If organ sales did become legalized it would need to be highly regulated. Some people in less fortunate countries are only left to sell their organs on the black market. Why not build a regulated system that compensates people fairly and provides them with safety? As unpleasant as it seems to commodify organs, the current situation is simply too tragic not to change something. If coordinated properly, it could simultaneously satisfy the needs of wealthy countries with long waiting lists and poorer countries with overwhelming poverty. In the 1990s, after years of war and economic slumps, the country, Iran decided to compensate donors by paying them for
However, it’s extremely important because organs from cadavers are often discarded if the family fails to make arrangements for them to be donated prior to the deceased being removed from life support. These situations significantly influence the fact that many Americans continually die every single day from not receiving a needed organ transplant. In fact, Sigrid Fry-Revere in her interview explains that 20 to 30 people die every day”. So exactly how should the American government address the organ donation shortage? The answer is quite simple: by compensating those who are willing to put the value of human life above all else. Compensation for organ donation is essential if the American Government wishes to increase the number of donors and significantly decrease the amount of Americans who are presently awaiting an organ transplant. Allowing compensation for organ donation will provide Americans with a stronger sense of protection, a clear expectation of moral behavior, and a stronger sense of American
Throughout history physicians have faced numerous ethical dilemmas and as medical knowledge and technology have increased so has the number of these dilemmas. Organ transplants are a subject that many individuals do not think about until they or a family member face the possibility of requiring one. Within clinical ethics the subject of organ transplants and the extent to which an individual should go to obtain one remains highly contentious. Should individuals be allowed to advertise or pay for organs? Society today allows those who can afford to pay for services the ability to obtain whatever they need or want while those who cannot afford to pay do without. By allowing individuals to shop for organs the medical profession’s ethical belief in equal medical care for every individual regardless of their ability to pay for the service is severely violated (Caplan, 2004).
The issue brought before us today is whether the commercialization of organ transplants is both ethical and beneficial to the economy and populace as a whole. There are many issues which are centered on this decision on which I hope to shed some light and allow for better resolutions to be made. In nearly every country in the world, there is a shortage of kidneys for transplantation. According to Corydon Ireland, in the United States 73,000 people are on waiting lists to receive a kidney. About 4,000 can pass away every year before receive a lifesaving organ. (Corydon Ireland, Harvard News Office. February 14, 2008) Some of the benefits of organ commercialization are increased revenues and jobs, as it would open a whole new arena of business, more widely available organs to those in need, and a wider method by which under-performing citizens can create temporary cash flow. There are many arguments against the allowance of organ commercialization, they include the fact that many consider it unethical to sell body parts, concern over the safety of these procedures, and doubt as to how those who donate will be treated medically post-sale. The final, separate issue which would need to be addressed is how health insurance companies are to handle those who sell organs and any post-op health issues that relate to the sale.
Central Idea: my central idea are what organ donation is and how it works, arguments against organ donation and refutations, and how to become an organ donor and benefits of organ donation
In the world of medicine there has been many new discoveries and innovations. Yet, it seems like the government is focusing on the wrong problems. One major problem deals with organ donations, and there is always a recurring question; should the family of the donor be compensated? Each patient unfortunately becomes an insignificant statistic joining the lines of hopeless patients who wait in line on the organ transplant list. The scarcity of transplant organs in the United States is accredited to many reasons: the unwillingness of families to approve donation after the donors death, even if the patient has wished to do so; religious objections; disinclination of medical personnel to approach families after the death; and the crookedness of the medical system. The need for organs far exceeds the number of donated organs, the dilemma becomes apparent: Should Organ Donors &/or Their Families Be Financially Compensated?
Rachael Rettner comments “One of the biggest fears with introducing financial incentives is that it might lead to an organ market and create a situation in which the rich could exploit the poor for organs.” Delmonico shares that “Once you insert monetary gain into the equation of organ donation, now you have a market. Once you have a market, markets are not controllable, markets are not something you can regulate. The problem with markets is that rich people would descend upon poor people to buy their organs, and the poor don’t have any choice about it.” However, if we make it so that it is regulated and insurance pays for organs it will not matter how rich or poor you are it will only matter about the person 's health and who needs the organ the most. People may see it has morally wrong. That the human body should not be sold and traded for money. That an individual 's body should be protected. However, it is also thought that it is an individual 's body and they should be able to do what they want with it. Overall, it will be better to save lives of thousands of people.
She could have saved eight lives the day she died. Actually, it was her wish to do just that. However, she did not inform her mother of this decision when she renewed her driver’s license. When the doctors determined her to be brain dead, her mother knew nothing about organ donation or her daughter’s wishes, and therefore, declined donation.
One of the most important and prevalent issues in healthcare discussed nowadays is the concern of the organ donation shortage. As the topic of organ donation shortages continues to be a growing problem, the government and many hospitals are also increasingly trying to find ways to improve the number of organ donations. In the United States alone, at least 6000 patients die each year while on waiting lists for new organs (Petersen & Lippert-Rasmussen, 2011). Although thousands of transplant candidates die from end-stage diseases of vital organs while waiting for a suitable organ, only a fraction of eligible organ donors actually donate. Hence, the stark discrepancy in transplantable organ supply and demand is one of the reasons that exacerbate this organ donation shortage (Parker, Winslade, & Paine, 2002). In the past, many people sought the supply of transplantable organs from cadaver donors. However, when many ethical issues arose about how to determine whether someone is truly dead by either cardiopulmonary or neurological conditions (Tong, 2007), many healthcare professionals and transplant candidates switched their focus on obtaining transplantable organs from living donors instead. As a result, in 2001, the number of living donors surpassed the number of cadaver donors for the first time (Tong, 2007).
In the United States, there are over one hundred thousand people on the waiting list to receive a life-saving organ donation, yet only one out of four will ever receive that precious gift (Statistics & Facts, n.d.). The demand for organ donation has consistently exceeded supply, and the gap between the number of recipients on the waiting list and the number of donors has increased by 110% in the last ten years (O'Reilly, 2009). As a result, some propose radical new ideas to meet these demands, including the selling of human organs. Financial compensation for organs, which is illegal in the United States, is considered repugnant to many. The solution to this ethical dilemma isn’t found in a wallet; there are other alternatives available to increase the number of donated organs which would be morally and ethically acceptable.