How do you create back alley organ transplants? Simple, just prohibit the buying and selling of human organs and then go all over the world trying to stop the market from working. Government payment for organs and control over distribution is no answer and would no doubt cause economic and ethical problems of its own. The market solution is just that–let the market determine the market. Here is my review of the Kaserman and Barnett book on the subject.
Here is Sally Satel in the Wall Street Journal:
Why We Need a Market for Human Organs
By SALLY SATEL
May 16, 2008; Page A11
Gavin Carney, an Australian nephrologist, held a press conference in Canberra recently to urge that people be allowed to sell their kidneys. “The current system isn’t working,” he was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald. “We’ve tried everything to drum up support” for organ donation, but “people just don’t seem willing to give their organs away for free.”
For $50,000, however, some Australians probably would donate organs. This is the amount that Dr. Carney, a professor at the Australian National University, suggests the federal government, “with proper ethical controls,” should offer willing donors. He would have the government repeal the ban on kidney sales so it can purchase and distribute organs to patients languishing on dialysis.Dr. Carney wants to keep desperate patients away from black markets. But until the kidney shortage is resolved, patients in Australia – along with those in countries all over the developed world – will continue to resort to them. The World Health Organization estimates that 5% to 10% of all transplants performed annually take place in the clinical netherworlds of China, Pakistan, Egypt, Colombia and the Philippines.
Because of the global organ shortage, thousands of patients die unnecessarily each year for want of a kidney. (In my case, I was lucky to have received a kidney from a friend.) And because organ sales are illicit, corrupt brokers may deceive indigent donors about the nature of transplant surgery, cheat them of payment, and ignore their postsurgical needs and long-term complications. The only way out is to increase the supply of available kidneys – whether by a cash payment to potential donors or through some other form of compensation.
Unfortunately, most of the world transplant establishment does not share this view. Instead, organizations such as the WHO and the international Transplantation Society focus on the obliteration of illicit markets.
The latest country to “get tough” is the Philippines. A few weeks ago, the government banned the sale of kidneys to foreigners. The reverberations are already being felt; a recent headline in the Jerusalem Post read, “Kidney Transplant Candidates in Limbo after Philippines Closes Gates.” (Israel has one of the lowest rates of donation in the world, so the government pays for transplant surgery performed outside the country.)
Similarly, patients from Qatar who traveled to Manila are “looking for alternative solutions,” according to The Peninsula. Many had turned to the Philippines because countries such as China, India and Pakistan have begun cracking down on illicit organ sales.
But the prohibition policy urged on these countries will only end up pushing organ markets further underground, or cause them to blossom elsewhere. World health authorities should direct their passion toward promoting a legal apparatus for exchange.
To do so, they’ll have to relinquish some gross misconceptions.
One is that a legal system of exchange will inevitably replicate the sins of unauthorized markets. “We don’t want to open up that type of exploitation,” warned Nicola Roxon, Australia’s federal minister for health, when she heard Dr. Carney’s proposal. But he is not promoting a free-for-all. His goal is a regulated, transparent regime backed by the rule of law and devoted to donor protection.
Another misconception is that a compensation system inevitably preys on desperate people. “They will be the only ones who would put up their hands,” said Dr. Tim Matthews, the head of the advocacy group Kidney Health Australia.
One way to circumvent this risk is by not catering to desperate people. A model system could establish a months-long period of medical screening and education. By providing in-kind rewards financed by the government – such as a down payment on a house (one of Dr. Carney’s suggestions), a contribution to a retirement fund, or lifetime health insurance – the program would not be attractive to people who might otherwise rush to flawed judgment (and surgery) on the promise of a large sum of instant cash.
Would prospective donors lie about their health to be eligible for compensation? An irrelevant worry in the context of regulated exchanges, since they would have to undergo rigorous medical testing over several months, which is the standard of care for altruistic donors. And donors or health-care professionals would be legally liable for any harm suffered by a patient as the result of receiving a diseased or substandard organ.
The way to stop illicit transactions – and the depredations of underground markets – is to sanction legal exchanges.
Dr. Satel is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and editor of the forthcoming “When Altruism Isn’t Enough — The Case for Compensating Kidney Donors” (AEI).
See all of today’s editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal1.
And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum2.
{ 21 comments }
Here is Ninos Malek on the subject too.
http://mises.org/daily/660
hmm, i live in australia and i think the proposal has got buckley’s of being accepted. we’ve got left-wing governments running all the states and territories and the federal government as well.
in western australia, they’re trying to float a more socialist-friendly scheme. that is, those who do not actively “opt-out” of the state transplant programme will potentially face organ harvesting on death (where medically feasible).
i don’t really know what to make of this proposal from a property perspective, maybe others have more formed views on this question.
in australia, executors aren’t legally bound to follow the deceased’s word to the letter regarding disposal of the actual cadaver, though conventionally this is the case.
i’d be happier if they waited till i die before they carve me up rather than bleed me dry alive, as is now the case.
This is very much in line Julio Elias and Alvin Roth.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2007/11/13/econ-debate-a-market-for-human-organs/
What I can say for sure is no matter what country you live in this issue deserves more attention.
Implementing either either a pay for organ system or an exchange is a vast improvement over current systems in place.
Also we could take a cue from Spain, presumed consent seems to alleviate, albeit a small percentage of the shortfall in this market.
as a postscript to my above comments, the implementation of any pay-for-organ-scheme in australia is likely to be frustrated by the “success” of the blood bank. unlike overseas systems, in australia blood donation is run by the red cross, and is a voluntary service. this programme enjoys extremely high public esteem (despite regular shortages of critical blood products). the screening is extremely thorough and we’ve avoided the hiv/hep b/c problems of other countries. i’ve donated on several occasions, and received blood transfusions myself, so i’ve got nothing bad to say about the volunteer system, except that it cannot make the shortage of blood go away.
the integrity of the volunteer system is welded to the national psyche, and if we can’t convince people that money-for-blood is ok, organs-for-cash ain’t going anywhere.
The idea of selling organs while you are still alive seems to me offensive to human dignity. Just because it takes place in sordid underground centers is no reason to legalize it, any more than it is a reason to legalize a trade in burglary-kits. Selling organs differs only in degree from selling yourself into slavery (e.g. to pay a debt).
I have nothing against growing organs in a laboratory from stem cells or whatever, and that also overcomes the problem of immune-rejection. The very high black-market price for organs should help spur developments in that area. Better that than the degrading spectacle of poor people openly surrendering their internal organs to rich people.
The idea of selling organs while you are still alive seems to me offensive to human dignity.
You mean as opposed to giving the organ away for free, as in a kidney donation? Why would your action of Selling something that’s yours, or my action of selling something that is mine, be offensive to your dignity, or mine?
Almost all organs come from dead people, not living people and most of the live ones are from relatives. The market would increase these cadaveric donations by several fold. The only reason people sell their organs is because the prohibition raises the price very high.
fusgerm:
burglary-kits _should_ be legal.
fusgerm:
Actually, burglary-kits _should_ be legal.
fusgerm says:
“…selling organs while you are still alive seems to me offensive to human dignity. Just because it takes place in sordid underground centers is no reason to legalize it…”
or alternatively, just because it is offensive to human dignity (as many would also say about prostitution, drugs etc) is no reason to render it illegal.
I would like to sell an organ email me for more info
extreamly poor,no job,losing everything looking to sell kindney call me (330) 941-06112 serious replies pnly have till sept first before i become homeless
extreamly poor,no job,losing everything looking to sell kindney call me (330) 941-0612 serious replies pnly have till sept first before i become homeless
I think there is are several flaws in Sally Satel’s and the AMA’s proposal to lobby for payment for organ donors. Here is my view point.
DECREASE OF LIVING ORGAN DONORS
The proposal’s purpose of allowing organ selling is to create more living donors but it might actually decrease the number of living donors. The studies I have viewed are flawed in one aspect, they only take into account the increase of obtaining organs from living persons from the point of adding the number of organ sellers to the number of living donors. This is a huge flaw for several reasons.
When you experience ESRD you know first hand the pain and suffering that comes with the disease. While there are people who are only focused upon getting an organ and they don’t take into account the problems the living donor might experience, there are many more who are reluctant to accept an organ from someone who they have an emotional attachment due to the potential health risks. Given both mindsets, it would be easier to accept an organ from someone who is being compensated. For the person who is only focused upon obtaining an organ, they have the ability to go into a pool of donor sellers and there isn’t a need to go through the rigors of pleading their case to someone in hopes of obtaining an organ. For the person who is reluctant to accept an organ from their loved one due to the health issues associated with living donation, they would chose the pool vs a related living donor.
If you think about it, why would someone want to accept an organ from someone they know if they have the ability to obtain an organ from a “list” whether the list is made up of obtaining organs from a deceased person or a living person? When organ selling is allowed, organs become a commodity, a thing in which something is bought and sold where there isn’t any emotional attachment to the person who has the organ. We know the emotional issues when obtaining an organ from a person in which you have an emotional attachment, organ selling would take away the emotional issues. While this is a huge positive for recipients, it is also one of the downsides we have in society. In the past people helped their neighbors and community in tough times. The simple things of cooking a little extra and giving it to your neighbor, buying presents for the family at the holidays when the caregiver lost their job or even helping with the care of someone sick has now become the responsibility of the “government” where no one feels like the owe someone. Granted the government helped people somewhat in the past but it was usually at the last resort. Now when you need something, you just file a paper for assistance, you tell family and neighbors not to worry, the government or an organization will take care of it.
We know gifts are something in which people shouldn’t feel as though they are indebted or have a payback to the person but there were paybacks that created a better society. Giving was a way for society to take care of each other, not something the government had to provide as a duty. Living donors have the “Old School” mindset,they give because that is what you do as a member of society and for your loved one. They give because they care, not because they are compensated. Organ selling won’t take away the “Old School” mindset of the donor BUT it will change the willingness of the recipient to accept an organ from a donor. Since death or even ESRD is a risk of removing an organ from a living person, how many people want to see their loved one endure that risk if they can obtain an organ from a deceased or organ seller? If you are a parent of a child you put your child’s health above your own health and donate an organ. You don’t worry about your pain, suffering or even your own death because that is what parents do but you do realize if something happens to you, your child could be affected. You know it would be difficult for your child but you place more importance on ending their physical suffering. Now if you have the option of obtaining an organ for you child through a pool of organ sellers, then you have not only taken away the physical suffering of your child, you have also removed the risk of your child’s financial problems if something should happen to you.
I think we will see a tremdous decrease of living donors if organ selling becomes law due to the reluctance of recipients to receive organs from living donors whom they have an emotional attachment. After all, if you can obtain an organ without risking the health and well-being of your loved one, why accept their organ? The anonymous donor would go by the wayside since financial gain is available. I’m sure the pool of organ sellers will not be enough to meet the need so we would be in the same situation as we are now, a transplant wait list for organs from deceased donors and living organ sellers. So how would we allocate these organs? We then come back to the original problem and again we will need the organs from people who are emotionally attached. This presents the potential problem of discrimination.
Is it fair to give a financial gain to some people for an organ while others do not receive financial compensation? Would it not be discrimination to tell a person if you donate an organ to your loved one you will not be given any financial gain but if you sell your organ you will receive financial gain? In order to not discriminate against a living person willing to share their organ, the government would need to ensure all people willing to share their organ is given some type of financial gain. If all people are given financial gain for an organ, will you have the ability to direct your organ to a specific person? Probably not if government agencies such as Medicare are giving the financial compensation. The related person’s organ will be placed in a pool on the organ selling list. This means your loved one will still be placed on a wait list. It wouldn’t be fair for the potential recipient who does not have someone who can direct an organ to them to be placed on an organ selling list, while another would receive an organ immediately if they have someone in their family to sell an organ.
When money is exchanged for an item, it becomes a commodity in which organs from living people will become a commodity. In the beginning the government will put restrictions on the commodity of organs so there will be equal distribution through a government program but in time it will be challenged to deregulation. Organs are not a commodity where it’s possession such as platonium is a national security issue. Organs would be a commodity up for deregulation such as utilities where life is dependent. Another problem presents itself when organs become a commodity on the free market. While the government could set a price on the organs, we do live in a free market where price is determined by the demand. Once the free market of supply and demand occur where the commodity of organs are up for purchase by individuals we create another problem.
If people are allowed to buy organs legally from another human being, then only the rich would be able to purchase organs while the poorer sector of society would be left on the wait list for organs from deceased and living people. Also, the number of organs from living people on the government pool would decrease once the free market existed where people could legally pay for their own organs. Why would someone want to sell their organ to a government program when they could obtain a much higher price from an individual? This decrease in organs from a living person would then mean people would still wait to receive an organ UNLESS they were financially sound enough to purchase an organ on the free market.
FINANCIAL COMPENSATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CURRENT LAWS
The current argument of this proposal is that donors should receive compensation for an organ. This is misleading because legally donors are allowed to receive compensation/reimbursement for loss of wages, medical expenses, travel expenses, etc. There is even federal funding to provide for the compensation. While the federal funding has much to be desired, it already exists so the proposal is not to compensate donors which is already legal, it is to give financial gain.
One proposal is that donors should receive medical insurance for donating. While this seems logical, it is a short lived proposal which is reliant upon the fact there wouldn’t be any Congressional laws to change the benefit given on donation. One proposal states living donors should be given a Medicare benefit but we are all aware the benefit relies upon Congressional laws that could be changed at any time. Even if the insurance companies provided an insurance benefit to donors who donate to their policy holders, the donor would be at the mercy of ever changing medical benefit policies. One only has to look at the current Medicare benefit that was enacted by Congress in 1972 to realize this proposal will not be a life long act whereas living without a kidney is a life long act. Living donors by law are to receive their own Medicare benefit but as we know, Congress has failed to enforce the law by allowing HHS to deny donors their Medicare benefit due to funding issues. If living donors are left to pay medical bills from their donation, then we know an insurance benefit won’t be enforced. The insurance issue is a mute benefit and one that will not encourage living donation since the government doesn’t even cover the medical bills required by law.
As stated above, financial compensation will only lead to a decrease in living donation. If the Sally Satel and the AMA want to increase living donation, then they need to work on the current laws and bills before Congress. There is a bill introduced by former Senator DeWine on the books in which living donation could not be considered a pre-existing condition. I met with Senator DeWine’s health advisor before the holiday break and upon the return Senator DeWine introduced the bill. The problem, it didn’t receive support. If the AMA and Sally Satel really wanted to help living donors, they would have lobbied for it’s support. They didn’t lobby because they want to be able to purchase organs, not help living donors. The selling of organs only presents a free market for the rich and not all of those in need.
Kimberly
I think there is are several flaws in Sally Satel’s and the AMA’s proposal to lobby for payment for organ donors. Here is my view point.
DECREASE OF LIVING ORGAN DONORS
The proposal’s purpose of allowing organ selling is to create more living donors but it might actually decrease the number of living donors. The studies I have viewed are flawed in one aspect, they only take into account the increase of obtaining organs from living persons from the point of adding the number of organ sellers to the number of living donors. This is a huge flaw for several reasons.
When you experience ESRD you know first hand the pain and suffering that comes with the disease. While there are people who are only focused upon getting an organ and they don’t take into account the problems the living donor might experience, there are many more who are reluctant to accept an organ from someone who they have an emotional attachment due to the potential health risks. Given both mindsets, it would be easier to accept an organ from someone who is being compensated. For the person who is only focused upon obtaining an organ, they have the ability to go into a pool of donor sellers and there isn’t a need to go through the rigors of pleading their case to someone in hopes of obtaining an organ. For the person who is reluctant to accept an organ from their loved one due to the health issues associated with living donation, they would chose the pool vs a related living donor.
If you think about it, why would someone want to accept an organ from someone they know if they have the ability to obtain an organ from a “list” whether the list is made up of obtaining organs from a deceased person or a living person? When organ selling is allowed, organs become a commodity, a thing in which something is bought and sold where there isn’t any emotional attachment to the person who has the organ. We know the emotional issues when obtaining an organ from a person in which you have an emotional attachment, organ selling would take away the emotional issues. While this is a huge positive for recipients, it is also one of the downsides we have in society. In the past people helped their neighbors and community in tough times. The simple things of cooking a little extra and giving it to your neighbor, buying presents for the family at the holidays when the caregiver lost their job or even helping with the care of someone sick has now become the responsibility of the “government” where no one feels like the owe someone. Granted the government helped people somewhat in the past but it was usually at the last resort. Now when you need something, you just file a paper for assistance, you tell family and neighbors not to worry, the government or an organization will take care of it.
We know gifts are something in which people shouldn’t feel as though they are indebted or have a payback to the person but there were paybacks that created a better society. Giving was a way for society to take care of each other, not something the government had to provide as a duty. Living donors have the “Old School” mindset,they give because that is what you do as a member of society and for your loved one. They give because they care, not because they are compensated. Organ selling won’t take away the “Old School” mindset of the donor BUT it will change the willingness of the recipient to accept an organ from a donor. Since death or even ESRD is a risk of removing an organ from a living person, how many people want to see their loved one endure that risk if they can obtain an organ from a deceased or organ seller? If you are a parent of a child you put your child’s health above your own health and donate an organ. You don’t worry about your pain, suffering or even your own death because that is what parents do but you do realize if something happens to you, your child could be affected. You know it would be difficult for your child but you place more importance on ending their physical suffering. Now if you have the option of obtaining an organ for you child through a pool of organ sellers, then you have not only taken away the physical suffering of your child, you have also removed the risk of your child’s financial problems if something should happen to you.
I think we will see a tremdous decrease of living donors if organ selling becomes law due to the reluctance of recipients to receive organs from living donors whom they have an emotional attachment. After all, if you can obtain an organ without risking the health and well-being of your loved one, why accept their organ? The anonymous donor would go by the wayside since financial gain is available. I’m sure the pool of organ sellers will not be enough to meet the need so we would be in the same situation as we are now, a transplant wait list for organs from deceased donors and living organ sellers. So how would we allocate these organs? We then come back to the original problem and again we will need the organs from people who are emotionally attached. This presents the potential problem of discrimination.
Is it fair to give a financial gain to some people for an organ while others do not receive financial compensation? Would it not be discrimination to tell a person if you donate an organ to your loved one you will not be given any financial gain but if you sell your organ you will receive financial gain? In order to not discriminate against a living person willing to share their organ, the government would need to ensure all people willing to share their organ is given some type of financial gain. If all people are given financial gain for an organ, will you have the ability to direct your organ to a specific person? Probably not if government agencies such as Medicare are giving the financial compensation. The related person’s organ will be placed in a pool on the organ selling list. This means your loved one will still be placed on a wait list. It wouldn’t be fair for the potential recipient who does not have someone who can direct an organ to them to be placed on an organ selling list, while another would receive an organ immediately if they have someone in their family to sell an organ.
When money is exchanged for an item, it becomes a commodity in which organs from living people will become a commodity. In the beginning the government will put restrictions on the commodity of organs so there will be equal distribution through a government program but in time it will be challenged to deregulation. Organs are not a commodity where it’s possession such as platonium is a national security issue. Organs would be a commodity up for deregulation such as utilities where life is dependent. Another problem presents itself when organs become a commodity on the free market. While the government could set a price on the organs, we do live in a free market where price is determined by the demand. Once the free market of supply and demand occur where the commodity of organs are up for purchase by individuals we create another problem.
If people are allowed to buy organs legally from another human being, then only the rich would be able to purchase organs while the poorer sector of society would be left on the wait list for organs from deceased and living people. Also, the number of organs from living people on the government pool would decrease once the free market existed where people could legally pay for their own organs. Why would someone want to sell their organ to a government program when they could obtain a much higher price from an individual? This decrease in organs from a living person would then mean people would still wait to receive an organ UNLESS they were financially sound enough to purchase an organ on the free market.
FINANCIAL COMPENSATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CURRENT LAWS
The current argument of this proposal is that donors should receive compensation for an organ. This is misleading because legally donors are allowed to receive compensation/reimbursement for loss of wages, medical expenses, travel expenses, etc. There is even federal funding to provide for the compensation. While the federal funding has much to be desired, it already exists so the proposal is not to compensate donors which is already legal, it is to give financial gain.
One proposal is that donors should receive medical insurance for donating. While this seems logical, it is a short lived proposal which is reliant upon the fact there wouldn’t be any Congressional laws to change the benefit given on donation. One proposal states living donors should be given a Medicare benefit but we are all aware the benefit relies upon Congressional laws that could be changed at any time. Even if the insurance companies provided an insurance benefit to donors who donate to their policy holders, the donor would be at the mercy of ever changing medical benefit policies. One only has to look at the current Medicare benefit that was enacted by Congress in 1972 to realize this proposal will not be a life long act whereas living without a kidney is a life long act. Living donors by law are to receive their own Medicare benefit but as we know, Congress has failed to enforce the law by allowing HHS to deny donors their Medicare benefit due to funding issues. If living donors are left to pay medical bills from their donation, then we know an insurance benefit won’t be enforced. The insurance issue is a mute benefit and one that will not encourage living donation since the government doesn’t even cover the medical bills required by law.
As stated above, financial compensation will only lead to a decrease in living donation. If the Sally Satel and the AMA want to increase living donation, then they need to work on the current laws and bills before Congress. There is a bill introduced by former Senator DeWine on the books in which living donation could not be considered a pre-existing condition. I met with Senator DeWine’s health advisor before the holiday break and upon the return Senator DeWine introduced the bill. The problem, it didn’t receive support. If the AMA and Sally Satel really wanted to help living donors, they would have lobbied for it’s support. They didn’t lobby because they want to be able to purchase organs, not help living donors. The selling of organs only presents a free market for the rich and not all of those in need.
Kimberly
My husband fell from a building at his place of work. He is unconcious and brain dead.The doctors say his organs are good and his cracked skull and broken leg does not matter. He is being kept alive by a machine but i cannot do this for long. I want to sell his organs to help pay his debts and take care of me and the children.I know he would have wanted this. He was in good health,vegetarian and nonsmoker. I will be happy to know his heart is out there somewhere. Please contact me confidentially via this email organdonor17@yahoo.com. We cannot keep him on the machine for long.
I think there is are several flaws in Sally Satel’s and the AMA’s proposal to lobby for payment for organ donors. Here is my view point.
DECREASE OF LIVING ORGAN DONORS
The proposal’s purpose of allowing organ selling is to create more living donors but it might actually decrease the number of living donors. The studies I have viewed are flawed in one aspect, they only take into account the increase of obtaining organs from living persons from the point of adding the number of organ sellers to the number of living donors. This is a huge flaw for several reasons.
When you experience ESRD you know first hand the pain and suffering that comes with the disease. While there are people who are only focused upon getting an organ and they don’t take into account the problems the living donor might experience, there are many more who are reluctant to accept an organ from someone who they have an emotional attachment due to the potential health risks. Given both mindsets, it would be easier to accept an organ from someone who is being compensated. For the person who is only focused upon obtaining an organ, they have the ability to go into a pool of donor sellers and there isn’t a need to go through the rigors of pleading their case to someone in hopes of obtaining an organ. For the person who is reluctant to accept an organ from their loved one due to the health issues associated with living donation, they would chose the pool vs a related living donor.
If you think about it, why would someone want to accept an organ from someone they know if they have the ability to obtain an organ from a “list” whether the list is made up of obtaining organs from a deceased person or a living person? When organ selling is allowed, organs become a commodity, a thing in which something is bought and sold where there isn’t any emotional attachment to the person who has the organ. We know the emotional issues when obtaining an organ from a person in which you have an emotional attachment, organ selling would take away the emotional issues. While this is a huge positive for recipients, it is also one of the downsides we have in society. In the past people helped their neighbors and community in tough times. The simple things of cooking a little extra and giving it to your neighbor, buying presents for the family at the holidays when the caregiver lost their job or even helping with the care of someone sick has now become the responsibility of the “government” where no one feels like the owe someone. Granted the government helped people somewhat in the past but it was usually at the last resort. Now when you need something, you just file a paper for assistance, you tell family and neighbors not to worry, the government or an organization will take care of it.
We know gifts are something in which people shouldn’t feel as though they are indebted or have a payback to the person but there were paybacks that created a better society. Giving was a way for society to take care of each other, not something the government had to provide as a duty. Living donors have the “Old School” mindset,they give because that is what you do as a member of society and for your loved one. They give because they care, not because they are compensated. Organ selling won’t take away the “Old School” mindset of the donor BUT it will change the willingness of the recipient to accept an organ from a donor. Since death or even ESRD is a risk of removing an organ from a living person, how many people want to see their loved one endure that risk if they can obtain an organ from a deceased or organ seller? If you are a parent of a child you put your child’s health above your own health and donate an organ. You don’t worry about your pain, suffering or even your own death because that is what parents do but you do realize if something happens to you, your child could be affected. You know it would be difficult for your child but you place more importance on ending their physical suffering. Now if you have the option of obtaining an organ for you child through a pool of organ sellers, then you have not only taken away the physical suffering of your child, you have also removed the risk of your child’s financial problems if something should happen to you.
I think we will see a tremdous decrease of living donors if organ selling becomes law due to the reluctance of recipients to receive organs from living donors whom they have an emotional attachment. After all, if you can obtain an organ without risking the health and well-being of your loved one, why accept their organ? The anonymous donor would go by the wayside since financial gain is available. I’m sure the pool of organ sellers will not be enough to meet the need so we would be in the same situation as we are now, a transplant wait list for organs from deceased donors and living organ sellers. So how would we allocate these organs? We then come back to the original problem and again we will need the organs from people who are emotionally attached. This presents the potential problem of discrimination.
Is it fair to give a financial gain to some people for an organ while others do not receive financial compensation? Would it not be discrimination to tell a person if you donate an organ to your loved one you will not be given any financial gain but if you sell your organ you will receive financial gain? In order to not discriminate against a living person willing to share their organ, the government would need to ensure all people willing to share their organ is given some type of financial gain. If all people are given financial gain for an organ, will you have the ability to direct your organ to a specific person? Probably not if government agencies such as Medicare are giving the financial compensation. The related person’s organ will be placed in a pool on the organ selling list. This means your loved one will still be placed on a wait list. It wouldn’t be fair for the potential recipient who does not have someone who can direct an organ to them to be placed on an organ selling list, while another would receive an organ immediately if they have someone in their family to sell an organ.
When money is exchanged for an item, it becomes a commodity in which organs from living people will become a commodity. In the beginning the government will put restrictions on the commodity of organs so there will be equal distribution through a government program but in time it will be challenged to deregulation. Organs are not a commodity where it’s possession such as platonium is a national security issue. Organs would be a commodity up for deregulation such as utilities where life is dependent. Another problem presents itself when organs become a commodity on the free market. While the government could set a price on the organs, we do live in a free market where price is determined by the demand. Once the free market of supply and demand occur where the commodity of organs are up for purchase by individuals we create another problem.
If people are allowed to buy organs legally from another human being, then only the rich would be able to purchase organs while the poorer sector of society would be left on the wait list for organs from deceased and living people. Also, the number of organs from living people on the government pool would decrease once the free market existed where people could legally pay for their own organs. Why would someone want to sell their organ to a government program when they could obtain a much higher price from an individual? This decrease in organs from a living person would then mean people would still wait to receive an organ UNLESS they were financially sound enough to purchase an organ on the free market.
FINANCIAL COMPENSATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CURRENT LAWS
The current argument of this proposal is that donors should receive compensation for an organ. This is misleading because legally donors are allowed to receive compensation/reimbursement for loss of wages, medical expenses, travel expenses, etc. There is even federal funding to provide for the compensation. While the federal funding has much to be desired, it already exists so the proposal is not to compensate donors which is already legal, it is to give financial gain.
One proposal is that donors should receive medical insurance for donating. While this seems logical, it is a short lived proposal which is reliant upon the fact there wouldn’t be any Congressional laws to change the benefit given on donation. One proposal states living donors should be given a Medicare benefit but we are all aware the benefit relies upon Congressional laws that could be changed at any time. Even if the insurance companies provided an insurance benefit to donors who donate to their policy holders, the donor would be at the mercy of ever changing medical benefit policies. One only has to look at the current Medicare benefit that was enacted by Congress in 1972 to realize this proposal will not be a life long act whereas living without a kidney is a life long act. Living donors by law are to receive their own Medicare benefit but as we know, Congress has failed to enforce the law by allowing HHS to deny donors their Medicare benefit due to funding issues. If living donors are left to pay medical bills from their donation, then we know an insurance benefit won’t be enforced. The insurance issue is a mute benefit and one that will not encourage living donation since the government doesn’t even cover the medical bills required by law.
As stated above, financial compensation will only lead to a decrease in living donation. If the Sally Satel and the AMA want to increase living donation, then they need to work on the current laws and bills before Congress. There is a bill introduced by former Senator DeWine on the books in which living donation could not be considered a pre-existing condition. I met with Senator DeWine’s health advisor before the holiday break and upon the return Senator DeWine introduced the bill. The problem, it didn’t receive support. If the AMA and Sally Satel really wanted to help living donors, they would have lobbied for it’s support. They didn’t lobby because they want to be able to purchase organs, not help living donors. The selling of organs only presents a free market for the rich and not all of those in need.
Kimberly
I want to sell my kidney pls contact on me premsuryawanshi@yahoo.com
49 O+ blood type, Boise Idaho ,very healthy person/ kidney to offer $50k contact: tammyr61@yahoo.com …would have to be done outside of States because it’s illegal here
Please if you have a kidney to donate contact me asap will be compensated… medical cost plus travel etc.
Tammyr61@yahoo.com
I am an American male excellent health, non smoker, no drugs, lite drinker, type O+ blood. I want to donate my KIDNEY and/or lobe of LIVER for all expenses and reasonable compensation. Serious inquiries only. contact me tomgreenman20@yahoo.com or call 1-904-207-8174.
Comments on this entry are closed.