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…
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
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.
It is against many religions, and some would argue that altruism is the only acceptable policy for transplant. In these cases, no amount of financial incentives would change their mind about making a donation. The physicians are now faced with an ethical dilemma of risking healthy lives to save or improve the life of a patient. Although surgical techniques have improved, this still suggests to not be ethical.
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
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.
Can you imagine your little child needs a kidney transplant? If child gets it in time, he will live a long, happy life. Without it, your child has a short time period to live. You signed up for kidney donor waiting list; time is ticking, time is running out, you do not believe it, but it is a long line, no donor was found; at the end you are lost your child…Unfortunately, this saddest end is really common in our life.
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?
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
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.
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.
3) Kearney W, Caplan AL. Parity for the donation of bone marrow: ethical and policy considerations. Emerging issues in biomedical policy: an annul review, vol. 1. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992; 262-85
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.