Compensation for organs?

Today, many people die while waiting for a kidney. The shortage of this organ is drastic. Some suggest ideas to make more donors available such as selling the organs for money, thus, creating an organ market. In America, these are illegal because they are said to be immoral or unjust. As a result, we are in need of organ donors. In the country of India, however, there is a different story. For years, India has been know as a "warehouse for kidneys" or a "great organ bazzar" with the world's largest center for kidney transplants with low costs and quick availability.

An article by M.H. Ahsan elaborates more on the subject in India:
KIDNEY SALE IN INDIA

For years, India has been known as a "warehouse for kidneys" or a "great organ bazaar" and has become one of the largest centers for kidney transplants in the world, offering low costs and almost immediate availability. In a country where one person out of every three lives in poverty, a huge transplant industry arose after drugs were developed in the 1970's to control the body's rejection of foreign objects. Renal transplants became common in India about thirteen years ago when the anti-rejection drug cyclosporine became available locally. The use of powerful immuno-suppressant drugs and new surgical techniques has indirectly boosted the kidney transplant activities.

The dramatic success rates of operations, India's lack of medical regulations and an atmosphere of "loose medical ethics" has also fueled the kidney transplant growth. The result has been that "supply and demand created a marriage of unequals , wedding wealthy but desperate people dependent on dialysis machines to those in India grounded down by the hopelessness of poverty"(Max). The pace of demand for kidneys hasn't kept up with the demand.

Consequently, the poor and destitute, victims of poverty, have either willingly sold their kidneys to pay for a daughter's dowry, build a small house or to feed their families or have been duped or conned into giving up their kidneys unknowingly or for very little sums of money.

Ironically, medical technology meant to advance and save human lives has been abused to such lengths, that in some cases, it has resulted in the death of innocent individuals. Most countries require living donors to be family members, or that organs must be removed from cadavers, usually accident victims. Because of the stringent rules regarding organ transplantation in other countries (specifically, that it is illegal and unethical to remove kidneys from a live donor, especially for money), and the shortage of kidneys, India has become (along with China) an "international center" for the transplantation of kidneys.

Furthermore, until recently, with the passage of the Organ Transplantation Act in 1994, there was not any legislation prohibiting the sale of organs in India. Due to the naiveness and desperation of poor, along with the fact that donating a kidney isn't particularly risky as it does not impair one's health, kidneys have become easily available in India.

Combined with low costs and the emergence of an illegal kidney black market which caters to the kidney buyers from around the world, many foreigners and the rich in India have taken advantage of and benefitted from the kidney trade. Only in January 1995, did the kidney scandal come to the surface through a series of incidents which received wide media coverage and prompted public outrage causing the Indian Congress to pass legislation banning kidney trade. On January 15, 1995, Customs officers in Delhi uncovered a "kidney tour" racket in which donors were enticed to go abroad for removal and subsequent transplant of their kidneys. Hundreds of donors were believed to have gone on such kidney tours.

To Read The Rest Of This Article:
http://www.hyderabadnews.net/articles/organsale.htm

So with that being said, the question is:

As we all know, organs in the United States are short. The government has set many rules and regulations on how these organs can be transplanted, unlike India. For instance, a donor cannot be compensated for donating their kidney, and we do not have any "organ markets." Do you think that if our government allowed the selling of organs through some type of compensation that there would be more donors? Do you think that what goes on in India is a better solution to the shortage? Do you think that this is immoral?

Tiffany:

I think that the shortage of kidneys and other organs is a very serious issue. As far as selling of the organs go, I do not think that this would be immoral that if a person is dead, and the family allows for the organs to be taken, compensation would not be wrong. It would certainly in my opinion rise the amount of people willing to put "organ donor" on their driver's license. Although, what is going on in India is not very benign to me, because there are many poverty-stricken people in India and they all jump on donating organs just to get by. Also, their government imposes very few laws on how the donation takes place. On the contrary, I think that it is great that a person in need of an organ can travel to India (although probably very expensive) and know that they will be helped.

Marilyn:

In my opinion organs for sale is a good idea. Just think about it, there are people who die every day--young and old--because there is such a shortage in organ donating. I think that if someone who is deceased have in their will or have on their drivers' licences "organ donor," why not take advantage of that? It's their wishes; no one forced them. I strongly believe if the government allowed it, there would be people everywhere donating their kidneys. It will save lives, and by the look of how the economy is declining in funds, it will also put money in poor homes.

Ana:

I think that it is not wrong for people to get some type of compensation for their organs, and I do believe that it will raise the amount of organs that are donated. Well, if you look at it people still do it illegally, so I think that it is better for them to do it safely and with the proper healthcare. I don't think that it is a better solution, but it helps the situation. I do not think that it is immoral because any one of us is allowed to do whatever they want with their lives.


Nataly:

I feel that something should be done to help those in need and in order to do so any measures must be taken. If the promise of money or other goods will persuade people to give a kidney, then I feel it should be done to save a life. Even though I feel a price should not be put on someone's life, I feel that if the government would allow a certain compensation or reward, there would no longer be a shortage. I also see why many may think it is immoral to allow this, but the truth of the matter is that we should be concerned with the current deaths due to long waiting lists and innsufficient organs or donors. I see it unnecessary for such a large number of people to die when something can be done. I fear that if something is not done there will be a loss of faith in today's medicine and medical resources as a result of this shortage.

Welcome to the Issues of the Week Discussion!

Hello, everybody!

This is where 10% of your grade begins. The rules for the discussions are as follows:

1. You will be posting a blog on an issue. What you will do is EMAIL to me the blog on the issue you wish to cover and the commentary you wish to add to the topic (you've got to start the conversation, naturally). I will post it up on the blog site for your classmates; whereupon, the discussion will begin.

2. You will also be responsible for CONTRIBUTING your thoughts, comments, theories, comparisons, rants, raves, inquiries, outrage, etc. on each of the blogs posted by your classmates. It's a give-and-take discussion, as well it should be.

3. Your blog postings and responses must NOT be anonymous. It wouldn't make much sense to grade an anonymous contributor when I wouldn't know to whom to grant the grade exactly, would it?

4. Since your blog postings and commentaries aren't going to be anonymous, I expect you to respond thoughtfully and intelligently. Please note, however, that I will not censor your writing. I strongly adhere to the ideology of freedom of speech. I simply ask that you refrain from using vacuous vulgarities and brash insults directed at your fellow commentators. That's not adequate argumentation, in any case.

5. Your blog issue will be on a CURRENT topic that's debatable. This may require you to start reading the newspaper, watching the tube, browsing the internet, and so forth. Direct your blog commentators to certain stories/articles on the topic as well, to assist in your discussion and their contributions.

6. Bear in mind, folks, I'll be contributing as well! Don't let MY vantage dissuade you from posting either (in good argumentations, no side is 100% right or wrong!). That certainly ISN'T what freedom of speech entails. In other words, feel free to disagree with my views, too; just be prepared to back up your claim!

7. Have a good time with this. What I hope this blog will do is free your mind a bit, and give you some ideas as to research paper topics you might not have thought of before!


So, without further adieu... Let's begin with something easy --

Each of you introduce yourself and give us ONE pet peeve -- one thing that irritates you -- big or small -- that really gets under your skin.

I'll start:

I'm MacKenzie Jennings (duh), and I am quite irritated with Nextel owners. The reason is obvious: I simply don't wish to hear about anyone else's personal affairs while in public. If Nextel users could all apply to be guests on Jerry Springer, they'd have a better public forum where equally annoyed "listeners" could vent their frustrations out on them and vice versa.