Selling Human Organs
Should we consider changing the law to allow the selling of
human organs? You might think that this would cause some real
scary problems, such as people who are poor being taken advantage
of, selling their organs to strangers. Of course, this does bring
up the question of why it is so terrible for a poor person to
give away an extra kidney, while it is considered acceptable
and even commendable for anyone's family member of whatever economic
situation to do the same. Is it the fact that they are not related,
or the fact that the person is compensated for his kidney that
makes people squeamish about this?
In any case, let's start with how life-saving organs are obtained
now, and the problems that presents. In the United States alone,
about 7,000 people die each year for the lack of an organ transplant.
Kidneys are the primary organs in demand, but the waiting list
for all organs is over 100,000 now, and expected to grow. This
means more will be dying.
Few medical professionals can deny that there would be thousands
more organs available if there were financial incentives. Unfortunately,
in 1984 Congress outlawed the the commercial trade of organs
with the National Organ Transplant Act. They also established
the "United Network For Organ Sharing," as the country's
monopoly provider of organs. This organization maintains the
national waiting lists, under an exclusive contract with the
Department of Health and Human Services.
Fortunately, if you can find a friend or family member to
donate an organ, you are all set. Otherwise you get put on one
of the lists, and your place is determined by the criteria that
are determined by this organization. You may or may not agree
with those criteria, but you are allowed no alternatives, because
selling human organs is illegal under the present laws.
Going outside of this system is strongly discouraged in any
case. You are supposed to be passive, and wait your "turn,"
and possibly die waiting. Naturally those with money are looking
overseas, and into the darker side of organ transplantation.
However, the primary issue here isn't about taking organs
from living people. A friend or relative may donate a kidney
a loved one, but the organs obtained by patiently waiting on
the list are primarily from people who have died. There just
aren't enough people willing to let their organs be used after
their death. This is where a financial incentive could help.
If a person could agree to have his family receive $2,000
or $20,000 (let the market set the price) for an organ after
he dies, there is no doubt that many thousands of people would
live who are otherwise going to die. Why don't we allow this?
The darker side of the business scares people, but that is here
anyhow. In fact, it is encouraged by the lack of legal alternatives.
It would be better to have as much of this business as possible
out in the open where we can see what is happening.
Many medical ethicists think that involving money in the area
of transplants is immoral. The opinion seems to be that a doctor
or hospital making a lot of money from a transplant is okay,
but to offer money to the person who donates the part (or to
his surviving family) is wrong. It isn't that giving the organ
is wrong - most of us are happy that this is possible to save
lives. The idea is that somehow it is okay for everyone involved
to be compensated except the person giving the organ.
My own view? Whether the donor is alive or arranged for organ
donation after death after death, if he wants to charge another
to help save his life, it is their business and their right.
I have no right to say to the donor, " You can give your
organ for free, but you cannot be paid for this serious procedure."
I have no right to say to the recipient, "No, because this
makes me uneasy, you'll have to die while waiting for a freebie."
I don't gain the right to make these life-and-death decisions
by joining with others and having my representatives pass such
laws.
Other people just worry that a system which allows the selling
of human organs will favor the rich. There are two things to
note about this.
1. First, the larger part of the cost will probably always
be the operation and hospital stay, so such a system won't necessarily
raise the costs substantially.
2. Second, these operations are already expensive in any case,
and are always more available to the rich or those with insurance,
so compensating donors wouldn't change things much.
And in any case, so what if the rich are more able to get
transplants? More of the poor who are now dying on waiting lists
would be able to get a transplant and live, and perhaps all of
the rich as well. The real argument here seems to be that if
some of the poor must die, we want the rich to die too - and
even if this means more poor will die - an envious an immoral
idea to say the least.
What we do know, is that the lists are growing. It is also
easy to surmise that thousands of people would get to live if
donations could be encouraged with money. Even live donation
of a kidney can't really be so wrong for money if it can be done
for love, can it? In either case a human being who is going to
die gets to live. With appropriate safeguards, there is no reason
a system allowing selling of human organs wouldn't work.
Statistics Source: Forbes magazine, August 13, 2007 |
