Singapore is preparing to pay donors as much as 50,000 Singapore dollars (almost US$36,000) for their organs. 2. Iran has eliminated waiting lists for kidneys completely by paying its citizens to donate. 3. Israel is implementing a “no give, no take” system that puts people who don’t donate an organ at the bottom of the transplant waiting list, if they ever need an organ. These three methods could eliminate waiting lists and convince people to donate if it was used in the U.S. It only took the Iran system 11 years to eliminate the shortage of kidneys. (paying citizens to donate)
A definition of terms is necessary prior to a discussion of the concept of financial incentives for organ donation. First, financial incentives, as discussed here, do not mean additional monies spent for public or professional education or recognition and counseling of organ donor families. Because the concept of financial incentives fundamentally changes the process of organ procurement, it has been argued that the term "donor" is no longer applicable and would need to be replaced by a term such as 'vendor." The term "rewarded gifting" has been suggested and has been justly criticized as an oxymoron by those opposed to financial incentives and a despicable euphemism by those who promote this concept. Of greatest practical significance is the distinction between "incentive" and "payment" since a system of financial incentives may indeed be a viable option if, as interpreted by law, "incentives" do not amount to "purchases" and "donors" are therefore not transformed into 'vendors."
Hospitals and doctors make up to 2 million dollars from transplanting your organs into others why can't your spouse, children, parents or loved ones get paid especially since they will at the least end up with thousands of dollars in funeral costs and up to 18 years to provide support for a child losing their parent.
Because of the research and possibly profit that can occur from donating one's body parts, financial compensation is an adequate solution instead of having to share profits with the dono so that the donor can avoid having to take legal action against the tissue harvester and/ or researcher that used their materials as research
Its a shame that you have to get money involved to get people to want to save lives but you do what you have to do. The world mainly the United States is based off of money. You can't do anything without it. It runs the world. If it will provoke people to say lives if we pay them then by all means.
The demand for organ donors has increased in recent years, due to an ageing population and improvements in medicine that mean more people are able to benefit. Governments seem resistant to allowing live donors to benefit from their gift. But a legalised system could solve organ shortages and be both safer and fairer.
Organs come from two sources: dead and alive. Last year only 7,943 brain dead patients organs were donated. We have to look to the living. Now only very very close family members are living donors. We must fine a way to help those who are thinking about it to actually donate. Reimbursing them for ecpenses will help.
All governments should encourage behavior that is for the good of others. If a small financial incentive is tied to organ donation results in more lives saved, then it is the responsibility of the federal government to do so. It should not be left to the private sector, as this area of health care has to be strictly regulated.
more people will be taken off the list and it will be effectivly saving lives
Over 100,000 people right now are in need of an organ transplant. 75 of these people will make it through today with a new liver, intestine, etc. Another tragic 20 will not. I wonder what these people would think of the issue on their deathbed? That the kidney they so desperately need was not available because it was "wrong" to allow incentives. The poor you speak of that would be "taken advantage" of in such a situation would be glad to donate and take advantage of the financial profit I'm sure. Now you're not only restricting organ donations and lives, you're depriving people of a possible income they might need as desperately as the person with the dysfunctional kidney needs an organ transplant. Further more, it would not in any way create more of a national debt, for the government is only permitting the use of financial incentives, not providing them. If the U.S. allowed financial incentives, they would save countless lives and at the same time create a new market that could go on a global scale.
By offering financial incentives for organ donating, this can promote a form of suicide for people in need or someone wanting to help out their family or loved ones. This could also promote other crimes such as stealing organs, and even murder, with the possibility of receiving money for the stolen organ.
A financial Incentive would put the U.S. into a Dept of over 108 Billion dollars for any kind of incentive
Providing financial incentives for organ donation might be something worth looking into in the future, but at this time our economy is suffering too badly. We need to put money into programs like education and other forms of health care. We have too many people unemployed and we need to be looking at fuel alternatives. We need to put money into many programs that take precedence over organ donation, which should be a natural selection in the first place.
Imagine this. Your at your mothers death bed, who had an "opt-in" on her drivers license. Not one minute after she passes away, there are doctors swooping in and taking her heart away. Literally.
So, let's say that we get paid for donating organs. It is highly unlikely that we will donate organs that are vital for life, only poor who are taken advantage of because of their disadvantage will- which is another reason the USFG should not pass the resolution today. So, if we donate kidneys, the only organ that can be taken out and still let the person live, all the people who wish to receive financial incentives would have sold their organs in couple of years. Then what? Out of 101,000 people who need organs every year, I would like to ask the PRO, HOW MANY OF THEM NEED KIDNEYS? Thus the USFG should consider other alternatives such as health care and non-financial incentives.
Because of the large national debt, and the fact that no one is guaranteed a job any more, lower-class Americans could be coerced into giving up their organs because the US government is handing out money to try to convince people to donate. Money is a valuable resource, and when people are desperate for it, they will be willing to do anything, even risking their own lives for it. People who are desperate for a couple thousand dollars, and are unaware of the health risks that arise from being a donor, are often forced to give up their organs because they want that money. It's similar to prostitution, but instead of sex in exchange for money or other material goods, it's organs in exchange for money or other direct/indirect economic benefits, which is prohibited in Title III of the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984. It could create a system where the poor are forced to donate their organs, and thus causing the rich to become richer, as organ donation/transplantation is a billion-dollar business worldwide. You shouldn't donate because you want money, but rather, because you want to help people.
The National Kidney Foundation opposes all efforts to legalize payments for human organs for use in transplantation and urges the federal government to retain the prohibition against the purchase of organs that is codified in Title III of the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984.
Offering direct or indirect economic benefits in exchange for organ donation is inconsistent with our values as a society. Any attempt to assign a monetary value to the human body, or body parts, either arbitrarily, or through market forces, diminishes human dignity. By treating the body as property, in the hope of increasing organ supply, we risk devaluating the very human life we seek to save. Providing any form of compensation for organs may be an affront to the thousands of donor families and living donors who have already made an altruistic gift of life and it could alienate Americans who are prepared to donate life-saving organs out of humanitarian concern. In addition, it disregards families who are unable to donate organs but do consent to tissue donation.
Offering money for organs can be viewed as an attempt to coerce economically disadvantaged Americans to participate in organ donation. Furthermore, since the economically disadvantaged have been shown to be less likely to be organ transplant candidates, financial incentives for organ donation could be characterized as exploitation.
I do not think that the United States Federal Government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ dontation because if the United States Federal Government did permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation, I would not agree with their decision on the basis of it being dumb.
When people get paid to donate their organs, then people who have little or no money end up being the ones who donate. Wealthy people do not donate, because they don't need the money. Since getting a donated organ is probably more available to people who have health insurance, the situation will be poor people giving their organs to rich people. People in poverty already pay for petroleum companies' private jets, due to paying a huge amount of money at the pump. They don't need to also provide wealthy folks with extended life, while potentially shortening their own.
No, people would be donating for all the wrong reasons, people would not think about the risks, and it is not a federal issue, it is a state issue.