More than 110,000 people are on waiting lists for organs they may not ever get in time (mantel). This has caused an organ black market in which people are trading their or other individuals’ organs for illegal money. In case making criminals out of normal people. In 2009, the FBI arrested a Brooklyn rabbi for illegal organ trade, he was buying organs from overseas for a mere ten thousand dollars and selling here in the black market for upwards of one hundred sixty thousand (Krauthammer). An organ trade of some sort needs to become legal and people need chances to be compensated for their organs. Also with the market becoming legal, patients will be in better hands pre-operation and post-operation. The system has more loop holes in it than anyone can handle. For example a person can show up to the hospital being willing to donate an organ and as far as the doctors are concerned it’s legal, but no one really knows if money was exchanged in some form (Glazer). Organ tourism has become an even bigger problem as well. Wealthy individuals needing some kind of organ transplant who are on the bottom of the waiting list here in the United States are going to other countries …show more content…
The Singapore government is willing to pay up to thirty six thousand for an organ (Tabarrok) and also cover lifetime health insurance for any citizen that donates an organ while still alive (Carney). Iran has a more direct policy which pays living donors about one thousand two hundred dollars an organ (Carney). Iran is also the only country that has completely eliminated the waiting lists in the process of paying them (Tabarrok). Israel is putting the “no give, no take” law in effect, meaning that if an individual isn 't not an organ donor, when and if that individual needs an organ they we put at the bottom of the waiting lists (Worsnop). That makes sense doesn 't it? In short terms, if a person isn 't going to share, they are not going to be shared
First of all, the moral implications regarding the donor’s situation are reason enough to ban this practice. Donors are being used as mediums to save other and are not treated as human beings (Greenberg 241). They are misinformed about the terms and consequences of the procedure, as well as being neglected once the organ transplant as taken place. Their own well-being is not taken into account and are not always monetarily compensated as they were told by brokers (Delmonico 1414). Second of all, a government should protect their citizens. Transplant tourism implies taking serious risks as a recipient, from receiving faulty or unhealthy organs to unsanitary conditions. Complications such as organ malfunction or failure might occur in such situations (Shimazono 956). For that reasons, governments of countries such as Canada should criminalize transplant tourism in order to protect their citizens. This point of view might be best portrayed by Utilitarianism as well as John Locke’s moral and political philosophy. A Government has a duty to protect certain rights, including the right to live. It also has to act according to the majority’s will, which includes donors (Sheridan). Of course, it could be said against the
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.
There are many arguments against it; organ sale is extremely dangerous, there will never be enough supply for the demand, whether legal or not, the black market will still exist, it is immoral, etc. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Radcliffe Richards, a philosopher, says “living organ donation is now so safe that many surgeons actively recommend it, and they would hardly do that if they expected a string of dead or damaged donors” (Wilkinson, 2011). As for the black market, “the best way of avoiding harm to organ vendors is not to criminalize and drive sale underground but rather to accept and regulate it” (Wilkinson, 2011). Prohibition is a good example of how the government banned alcohol and then realized that people were going to drink it anyway. Instead of pretending that it was not happening, prohibition was lifted and laws were put in place to regulate the sale and consumption. Although it will be a difficult process, the same can happen for organ
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.”
UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) is a system of allocation, what it does is arrange organs based on the region that the donations came from before being offered to outside regions. The focus is on the criteria for allocation that may be ethically defensible. It is maintained that organs are a resource of national community, for accidents are of geography and are “morally irrelevant” (DeVita, Aulisio, & May, 2001, p. 1). Many people are he...
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
The question arises about the ethics of making organ donation mandatory. From religions to freedom to fear, there are many pros and cons between the legality of the situation, but it all boils down to the freedom citizens have been given, which makes mandatory organ donation unethical. Lately, this has been an increasingly debated topic worldwide, as many people question the ethics of making organ donation mandatory. Organ transplantation is a surgical procedure, where a failing or damaged organ is replaced with a new one, either from a living or deceased donor. Any part of the body that performs a specialized function is classified as an organ. People can become organ donors by listing it on their driver’s license or signing a document with
For starters I would like to high light that I do not agree with organ trade, I absolutely detest it. To save a life by giving an organ is a good thing but selling it develops problems. Selling organs is very immoral because it allows our vital organs to be sold like a piece of crap. I do not see how legalization is okay, because no one should want to have their body part(s) sold on the market as though they are an item. However, I do support giving organs for great causes and maybe, giving it to science. Those are fairly acceptable things and they can become beneficial to science and people in need. In recent studies I found that “People who sell their kidneys receive a small amount for their donation, after all the majority goes to whomever is the broker i...
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).
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.
Iran, which has the world’s only regulated system for compensating a kidney donor, has practically eliminated the wait for kidney donation. While Iran’s numbers seem promising when compared to the wait list in the United States, their numbers are still questionable. First, Iran has an authoritarian government, which is widely distrusted in the global community; therefore, many do not trust the accuracy of the numbers which they report. Additionally, Iran has not produced any long-term follow-up information about the donors and the recipients. Despite the reported $3,500 - $5,700 that living donors received, seventy-nine percent of donors could not afford follow-up care. In addition, Dr. J. Richard Thistlethwaite, a transplant surgeon at the University of Chicago, states that “The stigma associated with selling your organs was so strong that 98% did not want to be identified as organ donors” (Stevens...
... will check to avoid all the risks that might occur. And according to professor Nadey Hakim, he believes that there should be a market for the organs instead of the black market (Smith, 2011). This idea will be lowering the problems of the black market or might even destroy the black market. It will be saving many lives and people will know were to go to get an organ they need that is safe without any consequences.
...nts will die before a suitable organ becomes available. Numerous others will experience declining health, reduced quality of life, job loss, lower incomes, and depression while waiting, sometimes years, for the needed organs. And still other patients will never be placed on official waiting lists under the existing shortage conditions, because physical or behavioral traits make them relatively poor candidates for transplantation. Were it not for the shortage, however, many of these patients would be considered acceptable candidates for transplantation. The ban of organ trade is a failed policy costing thousands of lives each year in addition to unnecessary suffering and financial loss. Overall, there are more advantages than disadvantages to legalizing the sale of organs. The lives that would be saved by legalizing the sale of organs outweighs any of the negatives.
Sadly this is not the case Problems incurred linked to Organ Donation. ------------------------------------------- Sheer lack of donor organs Ladies and gentlemen, the facts speak for themselves.