Financial Incentives Should Be Offered For Organs

In a 2003 issue of the Chicago Tribune an editorial featured the idea of organ sales to alleviate the needs of patients requiring organ transplants. The idea was not new and has been explored before. This article is important because it uses supportive research that could be used to eventually sway government officials to lift the ban on organ sales.

According to The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, “98,046 people are waiting for an organ” (OPTN). Last year in 2007 there were, “28,352 transplant surgeries, and 14,313 donors” (OPTN). Right from these numbers you may have questions. There were twice as many surgeries as donors? The reason for this is because, “some of the recovered organs are from deceased donors and these are not counted” (Organdonor.gov). The difference in numbers is not significant. What is significant is that only one quarter of the people waiting for an organ get one every year.

The numbers are quite startling. These numbers are a good reason to urge some type of reform. The first thing to look at is the operation of the list for those waiting for an organ. The national organ list is not very simple. When a kidney is available it cannot go to just anyone. The kidney must match a recipient waiting for it. It also depends on where the donor and recipient is located. Some organs can only be used within “four to six hours” after they are removed (Organdonor.gov). For this reason the list divides the country into zones. If you are waiting for an organ you are challenged by time, availability, geographic location, and compatibility. These controls are necessary. The necessary controls are implemented to produce maximum efficiency of the use of organs and to ensure the success of organ operations. The constraints on the list are understandable and unfortunately put strain on the distribution of available organs.

The organ list works. The only problem is the lack of organs. There are far more organ candidates than donors. A reasonable proposal to solve this problem appears in a Chicago Tribune article. In the article, “The American Medical Association proposed monetary incentives to promote organ donation” (Chicago Tribune). This was not a new idea and was refined by, “a Pittsburg group of transplant surgeons, academics and religious leaders” (Chicago Tribune). They proposed, “Lifting the ban on organ sales to test a project that would award five thousand dollars to families that authorized deceased relative’s organs to be used for transplantation” (Chicago Tribune). Their plan only would offer this incentive to deceased people. Ethically this poses a conflict for some people. The benefit of this plan is that it gives the deceased relatives a choice. If some feel that the donation incentives are unethical then they do not have to participate. If they would prefer when posed with the question they can donate organs out of altruism.

The concern exists that some people may use this system of organ donation with unethical intentions. Some may want to donate organs of relatives for the sake of money. However, people are faced with ethical decisions every day and it is upon them to make choices that ethically favor their beliefs. Once again, people have to live with ethical decisions that they make every day. Regardless of the ethical choice the decision has the intent to save lives.

Aside from ethics there are facts that can greatly influence the government to adopt this plan of organ sales. According to the Chicago Tribune, “Studies have shown that regardless of the cost given to organ donors this program will succeed” (Chicago Tribune). The study looked at the idea of offering incentives as low as five hundred dollars to families that donate deceased organs. The study proved that over time the increase of donations will help “virtually eliminate the waiting list” (Chicago Tribune). The study helps prove that money is not the driving force of getting more organ donations. This can be influential to making a good case for this plan. The study also could imply that this program could be limited. This would mean that the cash for organs would be temporarily implemented to stabilize the organ needs of the county. When the needs are met the program could be removed. The program could exist as a temporary fix when the organ demands of the country surpass support.

This program will not only save lives but save billons of dollars. The government and private insurance companies will save time and money. There are many people around the country that are supported by government and privatized health insurance. When a person has health problem they receive extensive testing to diagnose the problem. After they are given a diagnosis they receive treatment. A person who received the diagnosis that they need a new kidney due to its failure begins expensive and lengthy treatment. They also are in need of a new kidney from a donor. “The typical wait time for a donor kidney is 1,121 days” (Organdonor.gov). During that time they receive close attention from doctors and treatment such as being hooked up to a dialysis machine to prolong their life and chances of survival. The treatment that they receive is vital and vital treatment is highly expensive. If treatment was limited to a few weeks or months instead of three years; billions would be saved. Possibly these extra dollars could be used to better treat cancer patients and patients with disease. The time that doctors would save could be put to use finding better treatments and promote more care to more Americans. The health care system may even improve due to the great savings of money and time within the industry. The idea that there is billions to be saved could be used as ammunition for insurance lobbyists and to sway the decisions of our law makers. There are about one hundred thousand people waiting for an organ and the average time that they wait to receive any organ is about “three years” (Organdonor.gov). That equates to 300,000 years