The Daily Caller68%
The Case for Compensating Live Organ Donors 23%
By AJ Fluehr71%
4/23/2009, 3:50:47 PM
Keywords: Organ Transplant, Organ Donation
BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 19.8% saturation with 87 hits. Analysis detected 803 faulty-reasoning hits from 440 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.4% and a BS Rank of 23% (16,865 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 77.10% of the article peer group.
April 23, 2009 11:50 AM ET
Conflicting opinions on the ethics of organ donation have existed as long as organ transplantation has been medically feasible.
Eligibility requirements, reason for transplant, and international organ tourism continuously resurface as difficult medical policy and ethics issues.
One issue about which there is little dispute is demand for organs far exceeding the supply of donors.
Demand for kidneys exceeds the current supply of deceased donor organs and altruistic donors.
Approximately 73,000 people sit on the waiting list for a kidney — 18 of them will die by tomorrow and 6,000 more patients join the list every year.
By 2010, over 100,000 Americans will wait for a kidney donation.
A kidney transplant in the United States generally requires a five-year wait.
The development of a transparent, regulated market for live organ donation is currently prohibited by the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (NOTA), which imposes criminal penalties of up to $50,000 and five years in prison for any person who “knowingly acquire[s], receive[s], or otherwise transfer[s] any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation.”
The establishment of a transparent, public market to permit the sale of organs from live donors will transform organ procurement from a lengthy, stressful, medically damaging waiting game into a safer, more efficient, routine, life-saving process.
Such a market would have both economic and moral merit; it would deliver more and better organs at less cost than alternative options, and will result in more lives saved.
A model of direct payment for organs is available in the experience of Iran, which has allowed compensation since the late 1980s.
Singapore plans to introduce direct compensation in 2009.
What can be learned from a study of this process and its potential role in the modern American medical landscape?
The deliberate choice to rely on altruism has been unsuccessful and fails to reflect the advances that have been made in transplant techniques.
Technology and success rates have improved; why has policy remained largely unchanged?
The tide, however, is beginning to turn.
Individual states are experimenting with indirect payment systems to increase the number of live donors.
Moral outrage ought to be directed not at the tension between markets and altruism, but at the needless loss of life as transplant waiting lists continue to grow.
In that spirit, this paper offers two policy proposals to support the development of payment systems — both direct and indirect — for procurement of organs.
The most expedient route to a transparent regulated market requires a repeal of section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984.
Speakers
1speaker13%attributed speech383writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageNational Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (NOTA)
57 attributed words100% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.