If an individual has a chance to save the life of another person while becoming a donor of organs, what can motivate this person act decisively? In most cases, the answer is the feeling of love typical for family members and spouses. However, the other important motivator is the financial incentive. The problem is in the fact that many persons are ready to become donors if they are provided with the compensation, but this approach is illegal in many countries, including Canada. Healthcare professionals state that the shortage of organs is a problem that cannot be effectively addressed with the help of traditional means and official healthcare programs. As a result, the waiting times for transplantation increase as well as the death rate for persons who need donors’ organs. Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that proponents of the compensation for the organ donation indicate obvious advantages of using this approach for the healthcare system, opponents emphasize the unethical character of such approaches (Barnieh et al. 1957). Persons should be compensated for organ donation because this practice increases the number of available organs for transplantation; it works more effectively than other strategies to address organ shortages; it is typical for the healthcare; and certain types of compensation are necessary despite successes of the procedure, although the organ donation compensation is usually discussed as providing the undue inducement for impoverished people.
In order to attract more persons to become organ donors and address the problem of organ shortages, it is important to propose the financial compensation to donors. There is a crisis in the system of organ procurement, and more available organs are necessary to reduce the death rate of persons who need the transplantation of kidneys or liver, for instance (Gill et al. 134). The organ demand is high, and any opportunity to increase the number of available organs should be used. In addition, the study by Barnieh and other researchers indicates that 45% of potential donors and 14% of health professionals support the idea of providing the compensation for the organ donation (Barnieh et al. 1957). These numbers demonstrate that the public is ready to accept the situation when the organ donation is paid adequately.
Moreover, the financial compensation works more directly and effectively than other traditional approaches to increase the number of voluntary donors. The problem is in the fact that traditional programs, including strategies “to increase the pool of transplantable organs by using expanded-criteria organs, unrelated living donation, ABO-incompatible transplants, and living donor paired exchange programs”, did not change the situation during 10 years (Barnieh et al. 1958). Thus, the problem of the organ shortages remains to be unresolved in spite of all made efforts. If the option of the material compensation is actively discussed in the field of the healthcare, why do people ignore using this option widely? In addition, the black market develops, and people choose to purchase organs while putting the lives of their relatives and friends as a priority (Gill et al. 134). In this case, the situation of double standards develops, and it needs to be resolved to address the needs of patients rather than black sellers.
It is also important to note that the practice of paying for the bodily material is typical for the Canadian healthcare system, and it needs its further expansion to include the organ donation. People’s sperm, blood, and hair are purchased and sold actively, but the issue of providing compensations for organs arises many questions (Gordon, Patel, and Sohn 266). Barnieh and other researchers note that financial incentives for donors can become the necessary motivator to expand the practice of buying the bodily material and using it for the benefit of many people who need the real assistance (Barnieh et al. 1957). Thus, the only ethical question in this case is the conduction of the appropriate procedure of transplantation to save lives of a living donor and a patient.
In addition, there are situations when even voluntary donors and their families need to be provided with the compensation of different types because of the donors’ death and other expenses. Donors need the material support if they decide to risk their lives for other people’s lives, and families of died donors also need the adequate support (Gordon, Patel, and Sohn 267). The compensations can include the “payment of funeral expenses for potential donors”, “payment of wages, payment for pain and suffering related to the donor surgery, and payment of directed living kidney donors for participation in Canada’s paired exchange program” (Gill et al. 133). Barnieh and others determine “reimbursement of funeral expenses for deceased donors and a tax break for living donors” as other appropriate types of compensation that need to be provided in any case (Barnieh et al. 1958). Thus, the practice of compensating donors develops and becomes to receive the concrete features.
However, the opponents of the idea of compensating donors for providing organs argue that the practice of paying for organs can become exploitive and unethical in relation to impoverished people. As it is stated by Beard, the provision of the monetary compensation for the organ donation can lead to attracting the vulnerable populations and to their further exploitation (Beard 18). This situation creates the problem of the undue inducement when poor categories of the Canadian population can discuss the organ donation as a chance to improve their material situation. Nevertheless, even if the situation of donating organs for the purpose of receiving money seems to be unethical at the first sight, the outcomes of such situation needs to be discussed in detail. The provision of the compensation for donated organs rules out the idea of the individual’s exploitation (Gordon, Patel, and Sohn 267). Furthermore, such result of this procedure as a saved life of a person can automatically make the contract between a donor and a patient ethically important. Therefore, the provision of the compensation to donors increases the chances of people to cope with severe diseases significantly.
The issue of compensating for organ donation cannot be resolved in one day. However, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the provided compensation can address the organ shortages currently observed in the sphere of medicine considerably. As a result, the issue should not be discussed only from one angle, and all alternatives need to be discussed in detail for the purpose of saving people’s lives. Therefore, it is important to consider the opportunity to compensate donations of organs in many forms, including not only the direct payments but also discounts or paid leaves among other compensation options. If healthcare professionals and authorities discuss the problem from the perspective of the real effects of the financial compensation on the rates of saved lives, the proposed rewards and payment alternatives can vary significantly. The life of patients should become a priority factor for deciding on the ethical character of compensated organ donation.
Works Cited
Barnieh, Lianne, Scott Klarenbach, John Gill, and Timothy Caulfield. “Attitudes toward Strategies to Increase Organ Donation: Views of the General Public and Health Professionals.” Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 7.12 (2012): 1956-1963. Print.
Beard, Randolph. “Realistic Compensation Systems.” Journal of Legal Medicine 36.1 (2015): 17-38. Print.
Gill, John, Scott Klarenbach, Lianne Barnieh, Timothy Caulfield, and Greg Knoll. “Financial Incentives to Increase Canadian Organ Donation: Quick Fix or Fallacy?” American Journal of Kidney Diseases 63.1 (2014): 133-140. Print.
Gordon, Elisa, Christina Patel, and Matt Sohn. “Does Financial Compensation for Living Kidney Donation Change Willingness to Donate?” American Journal of Transplantation 15.1 (2015): 265-273. Print.