Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Financial compensation for organ donations
Ethical dilemmas with sale of organs
Essays on the benefits and risks of organ transplant
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Financial compensation for organ donations
Finding Common Ground
Organ Transplantation is a life-saving method that has become a normal part of daily conversation in the twenty first century. Most anyone you ask has known or known of someone who has qualified to be put on the transplant list in order to save their life, and many know someone who is successfully living and thriving with a donated organ. Often times these organs come from an anonymous donor that has met a fateful tragedy. But there are certain organs that can be donated from a living donor. While organ donation and transplantation has been proven to save lives as far back as the early 1800’s and many forward strides have been made over the past almost two centuries, it has not come without price tags, controversy
…show more content…
The proposal includes “tax rebates, deductions for transplant related hospital fees, medical insurance, tuition waivers for donor’s family members, or deduction of burial fees for people who donated in death.”(Satel, "Yuan a Kidney?") All of this was to make it more attractive for potential donors and their families to come out of the dark shadows to make their decisions. But unfortunately, in organ donation, as well many other human trafficking trades, the attempt to snuff them out only drives it further into darkness underground. Satel passionately communicates that she feels the practice of legally paying for organs is not the same as the “opportunistic human cannibalism” nor a “filthy business in the same subcategory as the sex trade and child pornography”. She goes further to say that while most of the world feels “Altruism [gift of life donation] is the bioethical foundation [of obtaining organs], and it should not give rise to financial gain”(Satel,"Yuan a Kidney?"), her …show more content…
In their 2003 publication entitled “Financial Incentives for Organ Donation”, the foundation clearly spells out their points and opinions on the subject. They waste no time delivering their stance in the article which opens with the following statement, “The National Kidney Foundation opposes all efforts to legalize payments for human organs for use in transplantation and urges the Federal Government to retain the prohibition against the purchase of organs that is codified in Title III of the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984.” ("Financial Incentives for Organ Donation.") The foundation feels that any compensation for organ donation, monetary or otherwise, is inconsistent with our values we hold to as a society, and that it would serve to devalue the lives it would save. ("Financial Incentives for Organ Donation.") The article goes on to state that in addition to the moral and ethical questions this would raise, there would be a certain effect on the socio-economically underprivileged in the United States, and this in itself raises yet another conflict, as the foundation maintains that “since the economically disadvantaged have shown to be less likely to be organ transplant candidates, financial incentives for organ donation could be characterized as exploitation.” ("Financial Incentives for Organ Donation.") The National Kidney Foundation continues to hammer away at
Obviously, people who are rich already have an easier time getting an organ transplant. The rich can more easily afford the costs; the poor will not have any more of a cost disadvantage than they already have. Epstein gives these reasons to support his idea that selling organs is not immoral. He does not accurately consider the immoral consequences of allowing organ sales by law. Compensating people for a good deed that is supposed to be selfless will completely change the nature of the action and the motivation behind it. Using money as motivation can be dangerous because of the manner in which harvesting the organ may occur and because of who may be reaping the benefit of the organ sale. Someone could use violence or could misuse their judgment to obtain the money from the organs of another person. Organs should only be allowed to be donated, not sold. Traditionally, donating organs is an act of giving in order to save someone else’s life; it allows a person to be a Good Samaritan. Willingly donating an organ keeps the focus on giving to others, instead of using a motivator that can corrupt, such as money.
In her article, Satel criticizes the current methods governing organ sharing in the United States, and suggests that the government should encourage organ donation, whether it was by providing financial incentives or other compensatory means to the public. Furthermore, the author briefly suggests that the European “presumed consent” system for organ donation might remedy this shortage of organs if implicated in the States.
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
In the essay “A Moral Solution to the Organ Shortage” by Alexander T. Tabarrok, Tabarrok presents the idea of paying organ donors and, or, only allowing registered organ donors to be able to receive an organ, in other words be compensated for the donation to help end the shortage. The essay’s thesis is, “Despite a prominent advertising campaign with Michael Jordan as spokesperson, and a national campaign of pastors, rabbis and other clergy supporting donation, the supply of donors remains far below that necessary to save everyone on the waiting list.”
The argument for organ donor system reform is compelling and strong. Satel supports her thoughts with facts and opinions from prominent authorities. As well as the argument being documented, there are a few weaknesses. While attempting to support her thoughts that having the body “for sale” would be socially acceptable, the author uses a source that could be seen as detrimental to her own argument. Stated in the text, “a recent poll by researchers in Pennsylvania found that 59 percent of respondents favored the general idea of incentives, with 53 percent saying direct payments would be acceptable.”
Imagine being a hospitalized patient waiting for an organ donation to save your life, knowing that the amount of people in need of organs outweigh the amount of donors. This is a sad reality for many people across the United States due to the lack of available organs. The debate over monetary payment to donors to increase available organs has been an ongoing fight for over 30 years. In 1984 an act was passed to put tight restrictions on organ sales through Task Force on Organ Procurement and Transplantation, which resulted in a depleted amount of available organs. This act that changed the organ sales industry was called the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA). NOTA was originally created to stop exploitative and illegal sales between donors and patients, but turned into a method of decreasing organ availability for patients around the world. I explored two articles over the complications of organ sale legality to discover if the monetary payment of organs should be outlawed. The first article focuses on the different market factors that affect the public opinion and the second explores the financial incentive declined caused by organ donations.
It’s important to realize that many Americans believe organ donation should simply be just that, a donation to someone in need. However, with the working class making up roughly 60% of society it’s extremely unlikely that a citizen could financially support themselves during and after aiding someone in a lifesaving organ transplant. The alarming consequence, says bioethicist Sigrid Fry-Revere, is that people waiting for kidneys account for 84 percent of the waiting list. To put it another way Tabarrok explains, “In the U.S. alone 83,000 people wait on the official kidney-transplant list. But just 16,500 people received a kidney transplant in 2008, while almost 5,000 died waiting for one” (607). Those numbers are astronomical. When the current “opt-in” policy is failing to solve the organ shortage, there is no reason compensation should be frowned upon. By shifting society’s current definition regarding the morality of organ donation, society will no longer see compensation for organs as distasteful. Citizens will not have to live in fear of their friends and family dying awaiting an organ transplant procedure. A policy implementing compensation would result in the ability for individuals to approach the issue with the mindset that they are helping others and themselves. The government currently regulates a variety of programs that are meant to keep equality and fairness across the
I chose this dilemma for reflection because of the true dichotomous nature of organ transplantation. Someone must die in order for someone else to live. Additionally, with the current demand outweighing the supply of organs available, another ethical “layer” is formed. In
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.
Nadiminti, H. (2005) Organ Transplantation: A dream of the past, a reality of the present, an ethical Challenge for the future. Retrieved February 12, 2014 from http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2005/09/fred1-0509.html
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.
In conclusion, although there are some valid reasons to support the creation of an organ market based on the principles of beneficence and autonomy, there are also many overriding reasons against the market. Allowing the existence of organ markets would theoretically increase the number of organ transplants by living donors, but the negative results that these organ markets will have on society are too grave. Thus, the usage of justice and nonmaleficence as guiding ethical principles precisely restricts the creation of the organ market as an ethical system.
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.
Kidney transplants are an option of treatment for people with kidney failure. With kidney failure, the only two types of treatment are dialysis or a transplant. Some people think that a kidney transplant is the better option as it allows for more freedom and the most normalcy in your everyday life. In a kidney transplant, a healthy kidney from a donor, whether it be living or dead or someone you know or a stranger, is placed inside your body in hopes that it will do the job that your kidney can no longer do. There are a few limitations to life after transplant, like in terms of what you can eat and drink, but typically a transplant allows you to greatly improve your quality of life. In fact, some people say that they are able to have the type