In a world where life expectancy has increased tremendously over the last century because of new technology and medical procedures, we find humanity ever pushing the boundaries on what it can do to prevent loss of life where possible. One example is the area of organ donation and transplantation. However, unlike many other technologies or procedures which can be built, manufactured, or learned, organ transplantation requires one thing that we can’t create yet: an organ itself. Because our increased life span causes more people to require a replacement organ when theirs starts to fail, the demand has far outrun the supply and the future only looks to get worse. “Between the years 1988 and 2006 the number of transplants doubled, but the number of patients waiting for an organ grew six times as large.” (Orentlicher, 2009) Clearly our need for organs is growing much faster than what is available. So in an effort to catch up to demand, proposals that have surfaced which have brought about much debate are whether compensation should be given for donation. By looking at the issue through a lens of utilitarianism and virtue ethics, we can find a way to help the most people while still allowing both donors and recipients to maintain the dignity of their personhood. In this paper, I will argue that donating one’s organs in exchange for compensation is indeed ethical as long as such exchange is regulated carefully. A case study of a woman, Ruth Sparrow, following an expensive surgery in Florida in 1997 exemplifies the issue of organ compensation. After the surgery she offered the hospital one of her functioning kidneys in exchange for payment of her surgery. However, the hospital turned her down. Instead she then put an ad in a lo... ... middle of paper ... ... from Wired.com Goyal, M., Mehta, R., & et al, (2002). Economic and health consequences of selling a kidney in india. Journal of the American Medical Association Husted, J. H., & Husted, G. (2008). Ethical decision making in nursing and health care the symphonological approach. (4th ed.). NY: Springer Publishing Company. Orentlicher, D. (n.d.). Presumed consent to organ donation: Its rise and fall in the united states. In Rutgers Law Review. Organ sales: Paying to live. In (2011). The Economist. Perry, D. L. (2009). Should violent felons receive organ transplants?. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics Prisoner organ donation proposal worrisome. (2007). American Medical News U.S. statement on prison status and organ allocation. (2002). United Network for Organ Sharing Zargooshi, J. R. (2001). Quality of life of iranian kidney "donors". Journal of Urology, 166.
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.
Death is an unavoidable factor in life. We are all expected to die, but for some of the people the end does not have to come too soon. Joanna MacKay in her article Organ Sales Will Save discuss how the legalization of the organs sale, possesses the capability of saving thousands of lives. MacKay in her thesis stipulates that the government should not ban the human organs sale rather they should regulate it (MacKay, 2004). The thesis statement has been supported by various assertions with the major one being that it shall save lives. The author argues that with the legalized sale of organs, more people would be eager to donate their kidneys.
Arguably, “Death’s waiting list” discusses a crucial topic of our times, regardless of how sincere Satel is in her argument, she does provide alternatives worth further analysis and consideration, after all, incentives are not that appalling to winning someone’s consent. Further research and public poles should be set up to take a deeper look into such alternative systems, yielding with insight to whether Satel’s suggestions potential in remedying this shortage of organs. While her argument might not be ideal, it does shed the light on this rising issue, and provides us with a place to start looking for solutions.
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.
Weitz, J., Koch, M., Mehrabi, A., Schemmer, P., Zeier, M., Beimler, J., … Schmidt, J. (2006). Living-donar kidney transplantation: Risks of the donor- benefits of the recipient. Clinical Transplantation , 20 (17), 13-16.
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
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
Yearly, thousands die from not receiving the organs needed to help save their lives; Anthony Gregory raises the question to why organ sales are deemed illegal in his piece “Why legalizing organ sales would help to save lives, end violence”, which was published in The Atlantic in November of 2011. Anthony Gregory has written hundreds of articles for magazines and newspapers, amongst the hundreds of articles is his piece on the selling of organs. Gregory states “Donors of blood, semen, and eggs, and volunteers for medical trials, are often compensated. Why not apply the same principle to organs? (p 451, para 2)”. The preceding quote allows and proposes readers to ponder on the thought of there being an organ
Although it seems that majority of the problems associated with organ donation are due to the physical lack or organs, there is another contributing factor. Even if there were an unlimited amount of organs available for transplantation, many uninsured and poor patients still couldn 't receive their transplant. These groups of people do not have equal access to post-transplant immunosuppressive medications. These medications are very expensive, so therefore the wealthy and well-insured do have an advantage on the national waiting list, just because they can afford these medications (AMA, 20017). Without having these immunosuppressants, an equal opportunity to live is not guaranteed, even though a patient may receive the new organ. Although seemingly fair and equal, when looked at through the lense of a conflict theorist, organ donation has many problems and
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).
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
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.
With an average of 18 people dying every day due to a shortage of donated organs and a new candidate added to the donor list every 10 minutes(U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Staff, 2013), the question arises; who should receive the opportunity of a transplant and who should not? John S. Mill argues ethical points that happiness forms the substructure of morality while fortifying this argument with examples illustrating that all the objects people desire is aimed at happiness. He attempts to answer the question of moral and ethical issues with a look at consensus and principles that support t...
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.
In this paper I will be using the normative theory of utilitarianism as the best defensible approach to increase organ donations. Utilitarianism is a theory that seeks to increase the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (Pense2007, 61). The utilitarian theory is the best approach because it maximizes adult organ donations (which are the greater good) so that the number of lives saved would increase along with the quality of life, and also saves money and time.