Should Organ Donors Be Paid For Their Organs - Essay Example

Should organ donors be paid for their organs? Introduction Organ donation is defined as a process whereby organs and other bodytissues are removed and transplanted from a donor to a receiver. Recipients need to march a donors physiological attributes for a transplantation to be successful. When this rule of thumb is overlooked or undetected, there is a high risk of organ rejection by the recipient which might often proves fatal. Currently, in the United States, the supply of viable organs is outweighed significantly by the dismal supply. The controversy surrounding organ donation has evolved over the years from the days of outright rejection of the course to the present debate of whether or not organs should be sold. Data from the U.S Human and Health Services website on organ donations reveals chilling statistics. It is estimated that 116,578 people across the country are sitting waiting for an organ while 18 others will most likely die at the end of day. The website claims that up to 8 lives can be saved by just 1 organ donor (United States Department of Health and Human Services). Further scrutiny of the website shows a grim picture of the situation on the ground. At 14,630, donations are hardly 20% of the number of patients on the waiting list. As stated earlier, close to twenty people die every day while waiting for a miracle. Having acknowledged the reality on the country, we are confronted by one the ethical issues surrounding sale of organs. Currently, the United States guidelines criminalize organ sale in the country. In 1984, Act of Congress (The National Organ Transplant Act) outlawed the practice. Nevertheless, individual states have put in place State legislation that eases the difficult rigors of organ donation. The State of Wisconsin set the pace when in January 2004, pioneered a program that offers incentives to a living donor in its boundaries. The law provides for a deduction on the income tax of a resident donor in Wisconsin. It meant to compensate him or her on expenses incurred in the course of the exercise, such as travel costs and forfeited income. Six years later, a U.S Court of Appeals ruled that a cancer patient could buy a bone marrow for $3000, in a verdict seen by many as boon to many suffering cancer patients across the country that require bone-marrow transplant and can afford to buy them from willing donors. The decision arrived at towards the end of 2011 was following a lawsuit launched in October 2009 by parents, cancer patients and bone-marrow-donation crusaders against the federal government over a national law outlawing the sale or purchase of bodily organs. (Park) Arguments put forward in support of sale of organs Monetary incentives meant to encourage living donation have since been the focus of bioethicists in the recent past. Scholars and experts view the buying and selling human organs alike as a depraved and inconceivable practice. The moral opposition put forth by the opponents is that, the sale of organs might incentivize the disenfranchised majority, who include the downtrodden poor and the uneducated to sell their organs and tissues to the highest bidder, especially the rich people who might suffer from organ failures. This need to make money might lead people to overlook probable demerits of organ donation, especially when does it out of pressure. Conversely, rich people would be granted undue rights of access to organs owing to their monetary abilities (Center for Bioethics 26). The present organ procurement structure relies exclusively on altruism to encourage donations. Altruism is a fine thing but it is in short supply. Incentives can be in different methods. Monetary reward is the most favored option though other schemes that seek to compensate the donor have been floated around. Financial incentives can be divided into futuristic/ long-term approach and on-the-spot methods. Long-term/ futuristic approaches Forward approaches engage donors in some form of long term plan that involves them over a life time, such that if they died in situations where their organs can be harvested, then they will are recovered. An inducement to donate, for instance, could be fashioned into something as little as discounting some-ones’ driving license of anyone who enrolls as a future organ donor. Every likely donor would either be compensated with a small amount at the time to be part of the registry. This would work in the fashion of the life insurance industry by investing in an unlikely event in the future. This market has huge advantages, such as the discounted rates of organ sale in future and the earnings going to the family members. The government, together with insurance companies would pay out the claims in future just as it happens with other medical services. These schemes maximizes on the independence of the donor and the task of making hard decision is removed off the shoulders of their family members at the tricky time, such as on learning of their relatives brain-dead state. (Tabarrok) On the Spot approaches This kind of payments are given as a means of expressing gratitude for giving up by the family has made in service to the population and would be analogous to the death benefit obtainable to the families of people in the military who die in the line of duty (Tabarrok). Points of view in favor legitimate sale and purchase of human organs are scarce, though there are a few scholars with opinions that seem to favor this course. Some experts have put up the argument that the United States can eliminate the economic gaps in her population with the help of her vast riches and by so doing, create an environment where organ sale is possible since no one would be compelled to sell their organs due to poverty. They argue that poor people sell their organs out in a desperate move to make money, devoid of any objectivity and knowledge on the decision. Other scholars not opposed to the sale of organs argue that payments are a good idea if they result in a rise in the number of organs donated. This argument is premised on the view that the donation of an organ is a comparatively little burden in comparison with the huge benefits achieved by recipients. Lastly, some have argued that the sale and purchase of organs is not morally offensive in itself, it is just that the prevailing structures in government are not adequate to monitor and check the processes involved in organ transplant to ensure suitable safeguards are instituted. This point of view goes beyond the medical field and touches right on both legal and religious perspectives regarding this issue (Center for Bioethics 27). There is also a Philosophical twist to this issue, as debates over the years have shown. The arguments that are hinged on the belief of the right to independent thinking and a libertarian approach to life. Though a wide range of varying opinion under this premise exists, the fundamental claim universal to all is that independent and capable grown-ups enjoy a strong inalienable authority over themselves to do whatever pleases with their bodies. This is particularly observed where it is not possible to cause harm to a third party. Thus, following this argument and there not being any deterrent reasons to do the contrary, people ought to have the right to sell their organs to a willing buyer according to their wishes. Now, it worth pointing out there is fewer arguments supporting the sale of organs. One of the most discouraging aspects of organ sale is the present-day illegal trafficking of organs. It involves abduction and forceful removal of one’s organs without their consent. Besides that, while taking into account the moral acceptability of organ sale, it is prudent to zero in on the entire issue not just on the worst scenarios. It is important to ascertain the possible amount of harm on that would take place in a correctly regulated scheme. While bearing this in mind, this objection against organ sale looks defenseless is in the wake of a number of arguments put forth. Evidence shows that there is no harm gotten from having a kidney removed from an individual and that it is very safe if carried out under hygienic conditions. Relevant authorities to be minimal, i.e. one in 3,000 cases, have estimated the risk. There associated risks, which include of slight complications that may include wounds or urine infections, are also very little-less than 1%. Authorities claim that the long-term health risks on an organ donor are negligible and that they can continue surviving on a single kidney. They also put forward the argument that donors are in no greater danger of suffering from kidney failure after giving away a kidney than anyone else in the public. Pundits put forth another argument against in its support saying that legalizing organ sale would ensure that they are carried out in hygienic conditions, thus reducing the risk of infection to the donor. Continued ban on the sale of organs only serves to fuel illegal and risky organ sale. It is the segregation of this practice that results in its being performed in very unwanted places. The carrying out of paid organ donations ought not to be riskier than the free-willed. It is also argued that paying an individual to endanger him/her life is not only depraved but selfish. Whatever the basis of such an idea might be is difficult to imagine and does seem unlikely going by earlier discussions in this essay. Although the act of paying people to carry out unsafe and/or disagreeable occupation is prevalent and even if this one act might make the world a better place to live, it is nonetheless an inhuman act to force people to engage in such tasks. It is difficult to prove that such acts are detrimental to peoples’ welfare when people openly engage in them, given that people engage in them on voluntary basis. Works Cited Center for Bioethics. Ethics of Organ Trasplantation. Research. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Center for Bioethics, 2004. Park, Alice. "CNN Health." Tuesday August 2012. cnn.com. Article. 29 November 2012. Tabarrok, Alexander. "Life-Saving Incentives: Consequences, Costs and Solutions to the Organ Shortage." 3 August 2009. Library of Economics and Liberty. http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2009/Tabarroklifesaving.html. 29 November 2012. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Organ Donor. 29 November 2012. 29th November 2012. . Read More