The argument of whether organ donors should be compensated for their efforts has become a heated topic. The two sides of the argument have equally valid points, but one must look to the benefit of not only the organ recipients, but also to the donors and to their well-being. There are more ways than one to get the desired organs, not all of them legal in the least. The exploitation of the poor that would accompany the choice of paying people for organ donation would most likely be devastating. Ultimately, organ donation should remain a gift between the donor and the recipient to reduce the chance of exploitation of any participants.
There is no denying that there is a dramatic need for more organ donors, and unless the government wants to
…show more content…
If a patient from poorer circumstances were at the top of the list she might get an organ though it would cost her everything she has. Having to pay the donor as well as the doctors and hospital would raise the price that the recipient would have to pay so high that she would never be able to cover it, and she might be overlooked altogether as a candidate for transplant.
And although organ donors should not be paid for organ donation, they should also not have to pay to help someone else. A short-term life insurance policy, nontransferable health insurance, and the costs of travel, time off work, and the cost of surgery and hospital stay should be covered for all donors. The recipient’s insurance or a government program such as Medicare should pay these costs. Any direct payment to the donor though could be disastrous.
Any form of payment would result in the exploitation of the poorer donors. This is because, “wherever there is a market, people will strive to find a profit margin even when this results in human exploitation” (Adair and Wigmore PAR 3). Those living around the poverty line would become the most likely donors, not because they necessarily want to help someone, but because they need the