“Organs for Sale” is a response to the ongoing ethical debate regarding a market-based incentive program aimed at addressing the increasing demand for organ transplants. Sally Satel, the author, advocates for the legalization of payments to organ donors due to the limited supply and high number of individuals on the waiting list for organ transplants.
Once in need of a new kidney herself, Sally shares the distress she experienced while enduring three days a week on dialysis and waiting on the UNOS list without any potential donors in sight. She proceeds to present various disheartening facts regarding the survival rates of dialysis patients, the duration of time spent on the UNOS wait list, and the numbers of registered as well as deceased organ donors. While Sally supports the legalization of compensating organ donors, she acknowledges the existing altruistic system. She suggests that incorporating both the altruistic system and a market-based incentive program would be the most effective approach to address the dire situation faced by waitlisted patients.
Dr. Satel provides four suggestions for organizing the market for organs, with the most straightforward and favored option being private contracts. Although she acknowledges the challenges in implementing donor compensation, Dr. Satel believes it is a necessary step towards reducing the disparity between organ recipients and available donors. I agree with Sally Satel’s argument for legalizing a market-based incentive program for organs, as it addresses the increasing gap between individuals in need of organs and potential donors.
In the argument, Sally discusses four interesting proposals for compensating organ donors. One suggestion is the creation of a “forward market for cadaver organs,” whereby individuals who join the donor registry would be paid a small sum by either the government or insurance companies. Additionally, those who join the registry could potentially expect a higher payment to be made to their estates if their organs are utilized after their passing.
In my opinion, it is possible to combine these ideas by making some modifications. Firstly, individuals joining the registry could receive a small payout as a reward for registering. Additionally, if their organs (upon their death) are used, a larger donation would be made to their estate. Furthermore, if someone chooses to become a live donor, they would receive a larger payment at the time of the live donation.
Money is a strong motivator, and it can push individuals to go through the inconvenience and risks of live organ donation. Some people might question the benefits of donating a kidney to a stranger, as they tend to think only about their own gain. However, with a scarcity of deceased and live donors, this would help balance the supply and demand while also increasing the number of available organs. However, solely relying on the possibility of payment to the donor’s estate if their organs are used may not be enough to address the issue effectively.
Impatience and skepticism are common traits in our nation. People generally believe that the government and insurance companies will not fulfill their promise of payment to beneficiaries, leading to a loss of trust in these institutions. Furthermore, in today’s fast-paced world driven by technology and immediate gratification, where quick money schemes, convenience foods, and expensive overnight shipping prevail, it is difficult to envision individuals willingly joining the donor list without some form of guaranteed compensation upon registration. Sally Satel proposes the implementation of a “centralized single compensator” as a solution to this issue.
The author proposes that donors should have the freedom to decide how they wish to be reimbursed for their donations, such as through deposits, contributions towards retirement funds, or lifetime health insurance benefits. While this approach is generally viewed as advantageous, there are worries that certain individuals may only donate with the intention of receiving immediate payment and then using it recklessly. Personally, I struggle to comprehend why anyone believes they have the authority to dictate how others utilize or obtain their money within legal means.
According to Mrs. Satel, individuals should have the freedom to choose a career as a plumber and use their earnings on beer if they desire. She also believes that compensated donors who volunteer should be granted the same rights. Mrs. Satel proposes exploring the idea of implementing a “multiple compensator” system.
In the text, the author mentions a possible arrangement involving the donor, compensator, and hospital. Charities or insurance companies might potentially serve as compensators. However, due to insufficient information and my own lack of understanding, I cannot form an opinion on this option. Furthermore, the author explains “private contracts” as an alternative method of compensation.
This is my preferred solution and the one I would implement. Just imagine seeing ads on Craigslist.org like “Kidney Needed – will pay $5000” or “Willing Donor – asking $4000.” There could even be a new swap website where you can barter for a new kidney or offer work like “Will work for kidney,” for those who don’t have the money to pay. It would definitely be a remarkable sight, but I can easily envision it.
The payment system for bodily parts is an intriguing concept to me. I find it curious that women are compensated for their eggs, men for their sperm, and plasma donors for their plasma, yet the same does not apply to kidneys. The distinction between these body parts and a kidney eludes me. Considering its vital role in the body and potential life-threatening consequences if it fails, one would expect a kidney to be highly valued. Moreover, there could be alternative avenues for less fortunate individuals to participate in this system, such as through charitable donations. Sally’s recognition of the existing altruistic system is what I find particularly admirable about this article.
Despite the fact that assigning a monetary value to a body part may be considered immoral or unethical, Sally’s proposal for compensating organ donors suggests a positive approach towards addressing the scarcity of donors in comparison to the high demand for organ transplants. Consequently, I support Mrs. Smith’s viewpoint and believe that prioritizing tangible benefits over spiritual ones is unfortunate within this system.
Satel proposes the legalization of a market-based incentive program for organs.
