Introduction
The United States is in need of more organ donors in order to address the increasing number of patients who need to undergo organ transplantation. However, there are various constraints that disable patients from finding organ donors, whether alive or deceased, due to limitations provided by the National Organ Transplant Act or NOTA. This law provides that monetary compensation to be given to organ donors is illegal. On the other hand, there are countries that allow the system of organ donation in exchange for monetary benefits. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the supply and demand, in relation to recipients waiting for organ donors. Advantages and disadvantages of this organ-trade system will be evaluated based on both the donors and recipients’ health outcome. We argue that, in order to address the shortage of organ donors in the United States, the government should allow monetary payments to live donors as well as the families of the deceased’s organs.
Being in a situation, where a person needs to wait for a number of years before getting an organ donor could be a complex experience. Some patients end up dying due to unavailability of organ donors. Other organ recipients turn out to be too weak for surgery after long years of waiting. Organ donation and transplantation is an important factor that will help in saving lives, especially for terminal illnesses that can no longer be treated with strong medications. However, as mentioned, the existing law limits the reduction of gap between potential organ donor and the organ recipient.
The NOTA is a policy that prevents potential negative effects of organ donation in exchange for tangible benefit for the donor or his family. However, many people may not agree with this policy due to its ability to limit the availability of organs for donation. In fact, Iran has been engaged with organ vending for a long time that it addresses the shortage of organ donors. This practice will help the United States when it comes to solving organ shortage (Hippen 1). We may agree with NOTA, provided that the portion of this law that prohibits organ sales must be repealed. On the other hand, people must not be permitted to receive compensation for blood, plasma, eggs, sperm, or surrogacy as most of the medical conditions for these cases are not life threatening. Thus, it is easier to find donors for these cases compared to patients who need organ donors, such as liver and kidney.
Individuals should be permitted to receive monetary compensation for liver or kidney donation, and so as the families of the deceased donors. This will address the shortage of donors in the long run. Monetary incentives will help in increasing the organ supplies for transplant, which will also reduce the queues in the organ market (Becker and Elias 3). This will be beneficial for the people who need an urgent organ transplant because there is a large fraction of patients who need these organs. In fact, some of them die or become too ill to endure the transplantation procedure while waiting for their organ donor. In contrast, allowing donors to receive monetary compensation or making the recipients pay for the organs would increase the medical cost. Becker and Elias (7) said that monetary payments to either the donors or families of the deceased donors would increase the transplant cost since it will include such payments. This is another idea that can be incorporated with the NOTA’s objective, to which the burden of finding donors will become worse by paying additional amount for them. However, there could still be more patients and families that would prefer paying more than waiting for number of years to increase the possibility of obtaining an organ donor. That is why; permitting people to receive monetary compensation should be allowed, but must be regulated for the security of both the donor and the recipient.
This organ vending system can be regulated through help of the government intervention. The recipient may pay the equivalent amount of the organ along with the surgery procedures. The donor will then receive the payment from the hospital so that there will be no direct contact between the donor and the recipient. The government may also provide a subsidy for patients who are incapable of paying extra amount for the organ and other associated costs. The bottom line is that there should be no direct communication between the two parties in order to prevent a possible organ black market. The government must also ensure the well-being of the donor before and after the surgery through creation of a separate group that will monitor the donor’s health. This proposal is attainable especially if lawmakers will consider the increase in public donations that will decrease the number of deaths and the reduction of the waiting time on organ transplant (Cutler 134).
Conclusion
The economic reality is that many people need the monetary compensation from organ donation and that many people are willing to pay to save their own life. Providing such compensation will help in addressing some of the donors’ financial needs and the patients’ organ needs. The NOTA may be amended in order to address the shortage in organ, which can also provide regulations when it comes to providing both parties’ needs.
Works Cited
Becker, Gary S., and Julio Jorge Elias. "Introducing Incentives in the Market for Live and Cadaveric Organ Donations." Journal of Economic Perspectives 21.3 (n.d.): 3-24. Print.
Cutler, James A. "Donation Benefit to Organ Donor Families: A Current Debate." BUMC Proceedings 15 (2002): 133-134. Print.
Hippen, Benjamin E. "Organ Sales and Moral Travails Lessons from the Living Kidney Vendor Program in Iran." American Journal of Transplantation (2008): 1-20. Print.
