Introduction
Compensated organ donations – one of the most controversial issues we have today. The scarcity of organ donations in America is the main reason there is a sudden diversion of possible source of organs. Beginning with donations of organs from cadaver to living donors, different strategies sprung just to reduce the said shortage; as a result of this quest, sale and paid organs is one of the approaches that gathered too much attention from the public. The controversy of paid organ donations entered the limelight when the state of Wisconsin offered incentives to the living donors. This law, which was created in the year 2004, grants tax deduction and repayment of donation expenses such as travel cost and lost earnings. Historically, neither property right to human corpse nor license to remove and transfer the organs of a cadaver is evident in the universal law. Hence, when transplants became possible, there were no legal systems that would allow individuals to donate their organs upon death for the purpose of transplants. To resolve this problem, UAGA or Uniform Anatomical Gift Act was publicized in the year 1968. This act grants individual the right to choose before death whether their organs will be donated or offered for transplants. In case, the individual can no longer decide because of his condition, the relatives have to right to decide for him. UAGA openly deals with organ donations but it is silent with the issue of sales and compensated organs. Buying and selling of organs remained unclear after the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) was approved in 1984. It improves the system of voluntary organ donation and prohibits the commercial markets of organs by turning it into a federal crime. Experts say that the ...
... middle of paper ...
...ro, L. (2003). Commodification and exploitation: arguments in favour of compensated organ donation.
Ghods, A. (2004). Governed financial incentives as an alternative to altruistic organ donation. 1.
Hansmann, H., & Harris, S. (1989). The Economics and Ethics of Markets for Human Organs. Organ Transplantation Policy: Issues and Prospects, 2.
Monahan, B. (2008). Should Organ Donors &/or Their Families Be Financially Compensated?. 3.
Monti, J. (2009). The Case for Compensating Live Organ Donors. Competitive Enterprise Institute, 3.
Rutecki, G. (2008). Commodities Trading or Gift Exchange: Where will tomorrow’s organ donors come from?. The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity,
Shapsay, S. (2009). Commodification, Exploitation, and the Market for Transplant Organs.. InBioethics at the Movies. Baltimore, Maryland, United States: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Transplant tourism, as defined by Yosuke Shimazono, is “the practice of travelling abroad to obtain organs through commercial transactions” (955). This new phenomenon has emerged as a global answer to the current organ shortage across the world. Currently, 4,500 people in Canada are waiting for a donor to remedy end-stage organ failure, and only an average of 2,000 will receive and organ this year (Government of Canada). In 2012 alone, 256 Canadian men and women died while on waiting lists for donations, meaning the emergence of practices such as transplant tourism has come as no surprise. Of course, the organ trade market has been hard to expose due to a lack of documentation, but certainly
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
When viewing organ donation from a moral standpoint we come across many different views depending on the ethical theory. The controversy lies between what is the underlying value and what act is right or wrong. Deciding what is best for both parties and acting out of virtue and not selfishness is another debatable belief. Viewing Kant and Utilitarianism theories we can determine what they would have thought on organ donation. Although it seems judicious, there are professionals who seek the attention to be famous and the first to accomplish something. Although we are responsible for ourselves and our children, the motives of a professional can seem genuine when we are in desperate times which in fact are the opposite. When faced with a decision about our or our children’s life and well being we may be a little naïve. The decisions the patients who were essentially guinea pigs for the first transplants and organ donation saw no other options since they were dying anyways. Although these doctors saw this as an opportunity to be the first one to do this and be famous they also helped further our medical technology. The debate is if they did it with all good ethical reasoning. Of course they had to do it on someone and preying upon the sick and dying was their only choice. Therefore we are responsible for our own health but when it is compromised the decisions we make can also be compromised.
Imagine being told that your kidney does not function anymore, and having to wait an average of ten years of waiting for a transplant, and yet being afraid of dealing with the black market for a new organ. Joanna Mackay believes that these lives lost every day can be saved, as said in her essay “Organs Sales Will Save Lives”. MacKay’s purpose is to decriminalize organs sales. The rhetorical strategies used by MacKay are ethos, logos and pathos. These 3 strategies are used to persuade the audience of the benefits that may come to both the donor and the patient if decriminalized.
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.
Critics of kidney sales argue that impoverished people are more likely to sell their organs than the rich. (Matas, 2004) They claim that the practice of kidney sales is injustice since vulnerable vendors are targeted and that they may suffer from lengthy health problems after the operations which may eventually lead to the loss of jobs. (Bramstedt, 2010)
6. Rothman, D. 1996. "Bodily Integrity and the Socially Disadvantaged: The traffic in Organs for Transplantation." In Organ and Tissue Donation; Ethical, legal, and policy issues. Speilman, B. (ed.).
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 National Organ Transplant act was enacted in 1984 as a free market for organs began to arise in America. Congress was concerned about the injustice that could arise from impoverished donors being pressured into selling their organs (Ci...
It is clear that a large demand for organs exists. People in need of organ donations are transferred to an orderly list. Ordinarily, U.S. institutions have an unprofitable system which provides organs through a list of individuals with the highest needs; however, these organs may never come. A list is
Organ donations are crucial for people in emergency situations. For years organ donations have saved the lives of millions. The problem with people needing organs is that there are not enough organs to be supplied to everyone who needs it. There are many people who die because they are not able to obtain lifesaving organs. The need for organs exceeds the supply given. Thus, leading me to ask this essential question, “Should organ donation be a part of the market?” To support this question I have prepared three supportive claims, but since my answer is no my reasons will revolve around this argument. First, I will state why I do not agree with such a thing, and then I will support my claim by stating why it is so bad, and to end my paper I will state what place(s) legalizes trade.
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.
Despite an increased rate in organ transplantation from living donors, the supply and demand of recipients and donors still has not met. In an effort to further encourage and increase the number of organs available for transplant by living donors, the contemplation of an organ market has been brought up into attention (Tong, 2007). While the idea of an organ market system would theoretically improve the number of living organ ...
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.