U.S. federal law has long banned any compensation for human organs, but with the demand for kidney transplants far outstripping the number of donors, some economists are urging the adoption of market-based innovations to increase supply.
One of these is the University of Buffalo's Julio Elias, who argues that, distasteful or not, monetary incentives are the most efficient way to boost the number of organs available for transplant, and should be introduced. On the other side, Harvard University's Alvin Roth argues that cultural mores -- repugnance -- preclude buying and selling of organs. Instead, he says, alternative arrangements, such as so-called organ exchanges, might be a better solution.
Julio Elias writes: The only feasible way to eliminate the large queues in the market for kidney transplants is by significantly increasing the supply of kidneys. The introduction of monetary incentives could increase the supply of organs sufficiently to eliminate the large queues, and it would do so without increasing the total cost of kidney transplant surgery by a large percent, as Gary Becker and I show in a paper on the potential of markets for organs.
Even though the benefits of eliminating the organ shortage are significant, many people have opposed proposals to pay for organs, a practice prohibited under present law in almost every country.
Some critics argue that payment is "immoral" because it involves the "commodification" of body parts, or that the poor will be "coerced." Others are opposed because they simply do not like the idea of the existence of a market for organs. However, conclusions about the morality of using prices to encourage supply or ration demand have changed in the past when they were shown to be effective. One example is a carbon tax to cut pollution; another is the use of willingness to pay to reduce the risk of death to measure the (statistical) value of life. Attitudes about using prices to help eliminate the shortage of organs would also change, I am confident, when it is shown how efficiently prices would solve this problem.
Alvin Roth writes: Selling organs is illegal in most countries. Legalizing kidney sales faces substantial, perhaps insuperable obstacles. Just as you can't sell yourself into indentured servitude anymore, some transactions are illegal because enough people find them repugnant. But many people are in urgent need of kidney transplants, so it's helpful to think about steps to relieve the shortage now.
Kidneys for transplantation come from either deceased or living donors (a healthy person has two kidneys and can remain healthy with one). Some ways to increase the number of deceased donor kidneys include changing how donations are solicited (e.g. introducing opt-out rather than opt-in donor decisions), changing when kidneys are "harvested" (after heart-death, as well as brain-death), and changing which organs are selected (e.g. older patients might profit from organs from donors older than are now considered).
There would be more live-donor transplants if everyone who wanted to donate a kidney to someone could do so, but a healthy person's kidney is often incompatible with his or her intended donor. So, one way economists have helped is in helping organize kidney exchanges, which allow incompatible patient-donor pairs to exchange with other such pairs.
What do you think?
35 comments:
I can understand how most people would see the idea of "buying" kidneys as repugnant. However, I believe you must look at the cost and benefits. Is protecting an ideal more important than human life? Is the cost of sacrificing your morlas worth the cost of prolonging someone's life? I believe its impossible for everyone to agree on one answer. I myself,don't see much problem with using money as an incentive to increase the supply of kidney donors as long as it doesn't go any farther than that. However, people might be tempted to have a full scale organ market. In that case, I believe that human life could potentially become very devalued.
Whitley C.
-1st
Nichole C. 1st
I am not so sure it is a good idea to have incentives for donating organs. While more kidneys would be donated with the option of pay, people are decreasing their value of human life to a few bucks. If organs were paid for when donated, many might be desperate enough to give away their kidney when they really need it. There would have to be several tests and screenings on a person to make sure they could donate organs before anything could occur. I guess morals do weigh heavily in this decision, but do people want to live or die?
Jennifer S-5th
This article disgusts me because it just goes to show that not many people care about other people's lives. They call organ donors "donors" for a reason: because they give while expecting nothing in return. Where are peoples' morals slipping to if they cannot choose between life and money? I don't know if I am alone in this but throughout my lifetime, I would like to give as much of myself up as possible for the welfare of others especially if I can live without the donation. If people began to sell their kidneys and other organs, then how would the poor people that really needed them be able to pay for life? People make me want to vomit and this article just reinforces why I can't stand most of them. Give if you want to make better people; sell if you want to corrupt them.
There definitely would be some morality issues if an organ market was established. This would create an unfair advantage for the rich to receive organs and this doesn't seem fair because organ failure could really happen to anyone. The lower socio-economic classes should have the same chances to receive a healthy organ as anyone else. Anyway, I like the organ exchange concept...
That's a hard question, but I think it's terrible that some people would only donate if they were bribed. I think it should be a gift from the heart.
Lauren R. 5th
Madison G. 5th
I don't think compensation for organs is the answer. Instead of paying people, educate them. Most people are ignorant about organ donation. If students are given the facts about organ donation while still in high school, they can make the decision on their own to save lives. Having more people know the facts will most likely increase the number of donors and therefore solve the problem to some degree.
want a kidney? $5,000
a hand? $10,000
an eye?
priceless
sounds like one of those commercials. We should help other humans but it should be banned to make money on your body parts.
Marta Gabler 2nd
JR Norton
5th period
No doubt that a kidney trade will not be the newest boost to U.S. economic growth-- it wont even be a legitimate trade in the forseeable future. Although organ compensation would increase the supply of kidneys, the moral qualms will hinder such a policy. The idea of kidney exchanges as well as a widening of qualifying donors are promising and definately the more productive route. Soon they will be able to create kidneys and other organizers with a 3-dimensional printer. Maybe that will take over and really feel the need.
Thomas G. 1st
Getting paid to donate blood, plasma, and similar fluids is one thing, but I think getting paid to donate body parts and vital organs is a little too much. In any case, if someone were willing to simply give up one of their organs for a few bucks I would be a little cautious if were receiving the transplant
Rebecca S. 5th
Placing a monetary value on vital organs would definitely devalue human life. It seems weird that you could go buy a kidney just like you go buy a Big Mac. Why not just rely on the organ exchange system and the intrinsic rewards that people get when they help someone else? Something is wrong in a society that requires incentives to get its people to do a good deed... Do we really want to become one?
how would this look to other countries. as sad as it is to say, there are people in this world that would kill someone to get the american dollars. do we want to become the contry that glorifies that view on life?
Mindy Orr 5th
people are already paid blood and plasma, so they should also be able to be paid for organs, there's no difference. if it means that thousands of lives are saved, then it is moral.
J.B. M. pd2
Erin F. 1st
I am not condoning the idea of selling organs for money but I think people should be given the option of donating a part of them selves. Personally I think it is like defying nature and a work of God. But this could be debated, I can see why we need people to donate organs, but sell them ?
I can understand how many people can see organ selling as unethical and immoral, although I do think it is more ethical than organ harvesting. On the other hand, I do think that organ donating should be an "opt-out" type of donation. When people die, they should automatically be candidates for organ donations, unless they previously requested to opt-out.
J.T. W 5th
James M. 2nd
I think that the market would work, but the reason it is a black market now is because it is not ethical and will never be.
I think that if people were forced to pay for organ donations, first, it wouldn't really be a donation, but more of a purchase. If people had to pay for these organs, there would be a huge advantage for the rich that could pay for these organs. A poor person that might need an organ more than the rich person, but couldn't pay for it.
Justin N. 2nd Period
Allen J. 1st
I think we should be able to sell body parts, but with strict guidelines as to from whom and where they come from. We should also make sure the donor/receiver pair is compatible before the sell. If we don't allow people that they can buy body parts, we are essentially telling people their lives are worthless and that there is nothing they can do to continue living. If that doesn't work, we should just have a melee killing spree where anyone is allowed to take whatever body parts they want from the pile. This would ensure the survival of the fittest, even if it meant that the fittest was a combination of two or three of the people with the fittest body parts.
I don't think a price can be put on a kidney or other vital organs. Donating blood and plasma is one thing, but this is much different. If a person needs money so bad that they start selling body parts, I would have to wonder about this person's organs.
Bo C. 1st
Clayton Patterson 2nd
I believe that the market-based innovations to increase the supply of donors is the only solution that will actually work and make a difference. And if it does make some kind of an increase then why isn't it moral?
Betsy E. 2nd
This is an interesting concept. I can see that the idea of selling organs seems a little immoral to some people, but honestly I'm not sure if that gives the government the right to tell me what to do with my body (unless I am harming someone else). Now, in the case of abortion, I am causing harm to an innocent child. In the case of prostitution, I could be giving someone an STD. However, in this case I am simply giving someone a kidney. I just don't see how the law in place does anything but infringe on rights as a U.S. citizen.
People should give their kidneys for free, or maybe a small price, like a life time supply of Chick-fil-a. But more people would donate if they could benefit from it somehow because most people are stubborn.
Gina P. (2nd)
I think if people were better educated about the option of donating organs there would be an increase in the amount given. Who ever really hears about all of the people that need them? I'm not sure how much a market would help considering how great the price of organs would be.
Ty P. 5th
I don't think selling organs would be the best idea. It would cause too many problems and face many moral issues. I agree with Alvin Roth's solution about kidney exchanges and think it would relieve the kidney shortage just as well as the selling of kidneys would.
Melissa C. 2nd
Danielle V. 1st
I think that these monetary incentives are a good idea for raising the supply of kidneys. I think we will contributing greatly to the economy and to the people the organs are given to. Why not try something new?
I really don't give a crap whether it's immoral or not to offer monetary incentives for organ donations... It's immoral to let families fall apart and individuals like ourselves die on an hourly basis just because we're afraid of catering to some person's greed (whom, I may say, is incredibly noble as it is undergoing operations and whatnot voluntarily...or incredibly in need of crack money). I think it's stupid to even raise an issue about the motive behind the action is impure.. Who CARES?!? The father of 4 children and 20 million grandkids sure as hell won't! Realistically speaking, however, there are millions of complications in implementing this new policy such as:
1. organ trade on the black market would skyrocket for organ scalpers...or hearters or liverers or... yeah.. bad joke.. anyway, you know that that would encourage gangs and criminals to "seek" out more cadavers so they could do some sort of shady transaction.
2. Where the hell are hospitals going to get the funding for this type of thing? the patient receiving the organ transplant is already paying for the operation as it is.. that would simply be too much to ask.
3. Plus, once people find out there are places that offer monetary incentive for organs, how many goody two-shoes out there would ever consider doing something incredibly dangerous, exhausting, inconvenient, or selfless for free when they could be compensated for their troubles elsewhere?
4.desperate people with their dirty tricks will put their dirty organs into the supply and someone might be harmed by that.
5. someone will be a very sad panda
Kayla Hamby- 5th
Alexa Daniel- 2nd
I don't think that selling organs for money is the right answer to the long waiting lists for organ transplants. It's immoral and somewhat disturbing making money off your own organs.
Well I think there's nothing wrong with incentives, as long as it saves lives. I'd also be nice if people continued to donate organs just from the good of there heart. But I have know idea if any of that would actually happen.
Joe B.
5th
I don't see a problem, lets be honest. Generally people aren't just going to donate their organs without a mutual benefit. Sure their are pros and cons, you don't want the prices to be ridiculous or there might be crack heads going around killing people!
Jacob B.
1st
Bennett W. 5th
In some places they already pay you money for organs. It doesn't matter what I think about what other people do but it is kinda creepy to think about it. Selling parts of yourself for money just seems weird. We need to find a way to grow new organs in laboratories, that way no one has to give up there organs and people could say goodbye to long waiting lists.
I like my kidneys exactly where they are, in my body. On the other hand, I would graciously give an organ to someone I love. The only thing that comes to mind when I think about organs, especially on the black market, is that gross horror movie Turistas. EwwwwE!
Leah B. -2nd
wow, if you're so broke that you feel obligated to sell one of your organs, you don't deserve the privilage of having a kidney anyway.
olivia m.
2nd
The idea of coming up with alternative ways to supply organs to people on the waiting list is a great idea.But, selling organs is not right.Instead of going to the people that need it more, it goes to the people that are able to afford the organ.
Kim L.
(1)
emily howard, 5th period
that is a difficult question, but i think its bad when some people only donate when their bribed. It should mean something to that person and be more of a gift.
I beleive that the organ trade/donation process is a good idea, however it is extremely unfair to make everyone pay the same amount of money for them. There should be some sourt of system to pay for organs based on your yearly income. Less money=less money to buy an organ and vise versa.
Landon Hogle
1st
Post a Comment