Fri 15 Jun, 2012 02:44 pm
Proponents for organs for compensation says that people will commit to it and won't back out at the last second. As well as people with diseases related to bone marrow transplants, who need it quick, will get such treatments quick due to faster availabilities, because carrot at the end of a stick is a delightful incentive.
They argue it isn’t more ethical to continue allowing thousands of people to die prematurely each year because of prohibitions against organ sales. People like entertainer Barry White (who died while on the kidney waiting list) or sports star Walter Payton (who died while on the liver waiting list). Saving lives is by far the more ethical goal.
Donors say there is a danger of coercive, organ trafficking activities or organ theft by unscrupulous individuals when a price is put on organs. Basically harvesting "drug lord" problems will arise. Instead of drugs, there will be illegal activities of organs from kidnapped individuals, etc.
Furthermore, it would favor the rich and possibly the young.
What say you?
It's your body. Do what you will, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
This ethical dilemma came into my sight from NPR.
A federal law makes it illegal to buy or sell organs for transplant. This month, an opinion poll by NPR and Thomson Reuters finds that about 60 percent of Americans would support modest compensation. The survey asked about kidneys, bone marrow, parts of a liver, organs that can be removed from the living.
The question is whether the federal law is playing it on the safe side to stop human harvesting in the future, a shady lucrative business potential is in the making, or is there?
Recently a man was found ineligble for "American" heath insurance after donating his kidney to his daughter. I think this will set a precedent and fewer donations will be forthcoming in the future.. A shame really, but your insurance programs seems to prefer dead donors, patients than healthy live ones.
The world has truly become a frightening place where profit is put before the value of life.
The insurance company looks at the middle aged guy, I'm guessing, who theoretically could be entering a life period where he needs more medical care and thus creates more expense. So the insurance company doesn't want to take the risk of loosing their profit on him.
Dead donors don't file claims.
As long as I'm the CEO of the company, I wouldn't sell the organs, I would rent it. If people can't pay the rent, they'll be hunted down and harvested. And I'll turn orphanages into organ harvesting farms.
You mean prisons right?
Now I see it, instead of my taxes going to pay prisons, they should harvest prisoner's organs and support prisons financially that way.
This organ selling/donation issues are very alarming. The government should take a huge step to stop the matter.
Proposals suggesting monetary compensation of organ donors to increase donation rates for transplantation are founded on the ethical premise that the principal criterion for organ procurement policy should be patients' health and not the personal preferences and philosophies of policymakers. In this paper, we argue that a market-based organ procurement system is superior to both the current altruistic-based system and a system based on compensation without a market. A market system would address both the problem of potential donors refusing to donate and that of their never being asked, whereas the altruistic system addresses neither problem and a system of compensation addresses only the former. Empirical evidence suggests that the latter (not being asked) is the predominant cause of the current shortage of organs. Our discussion shows that collection rates are likely to be substantially higher under a market system.
Thanks And Regards.
It's polite to acknowledge the source of material you're directly quoting, rather than claim it as your own.:
Improving organ donation: compensation versus markets: