The act of sacrificing one’s own organs in order to save other people’s lives is one of the noblest acts of courage and selflessness that one can undertake. Therefore, the idea of offering a reward for the specified decision seems to be a rational thing to suggest. However, payments for organ donations must not be continued as a common practice due to the presence of significant moral ambiguity and the threat of devaluing human life.
Indeed, considering the phenomenon of paying for organ donation as a concept, one will recognize the problematic nature of the premise behind it. Specifically, the very act of offering one money for organ donation appears to be degrading the humanity of the donor. Furthermore, the described measure is unlikely to yield any substantial results in increasing the number of donors. According to a recent study on the issue of payment for a donation, there has been no significant change in respondents’ intention to donate their organs even after the opportunity to be paid a certain amount of money was introduced (Chan 257). The described trend proves the strength of most people’s convictions and beliefs regarding the subject of organ donation, which is why introducing an additional incentive does not seem reasonable given the expected lack of effect. In other words, those that are willing to donate their organs do not need an additional boost, whereas financial incentives for those reluctant to donate may lead to further fraud.
Furthermore, with the introduction of payments for organ donations, controlling the end use of the donated organs will become virtually impossible, which will lead to highly questionable outcomes. For instance, it is highly probable that certain organizations may use donated organs for experimental purposes instead of using donated organs to save lives. While not being illegal or immoral per se, these are not used to save lives, which organ donation typically implies. Thus, people consenting to organ donation may be unaware that their contribution will be used for questionable research as opposed to saving someone’s life.
Religious concerns, along with the class inequality, should also be added to the discussion. Specifically, in the system where religious minorities are systemically oppressed and where the rich dominate and exploit the poor, the threat of organ donations being abused becomes increasingly probable once a financial incentive is introduced (Levy 426). Thus, there are strong and legitimate objections to continuing the use of payments as an incentive for organ donations.
Last but not least, the issue of safety needs to be addressed as one of the core factors in deciding on the legalization of payment for organ donations. Specifically, it would be legitimate to consider the probability of criminal activity rates spiking as a result of the specified solution. Namely, illegal organ donations for the sake of receiving quick money may emerge, possibly, creating an entire criminal industry (Bastani 279). For this reason, introducing=g financial rewards for organ donations may turn out to be criminally irresponsible.
Due to the presence of numerous ethical biases, a plethora of grounds for controversies, and a possibility of a rise in crime rates, payments for organ donations must not become a legal standard in the healthcare industry. Although the proposed measure is well-meaning and aimed at increasing the number of organ donors, it is also likely to lead to severely damaging outcomes for donors and patients. Thus, organ donations should be performed on a purely voluntary basis.
Works Cited
Bastani, Bahar. “The Present and Future of Transplant Organ Shortage: Some Potential Remedies.” Journal of nephrology, vol. 33, no. 2, 2020, pp. 277-288.
Chan, Eugene Y. “The Politics of Intent: Political Ideology Influences Organ Donation Intentions.” Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 142, 2019, pp. 255-259.
Levy, Mélanie. “State Incentives to Promote Organ Donation: Honoring the Principles of Reciprocity and Solidarity Inherent in the Gift Relationship.” Journal of Law and the Biosciences, vol. 5, no. 2, 2018, pp. 398-435.