Composition 1 (9:30-10:45)
15 October 2012
Organs For Sale
There is a vital need for organs in the United States. The demand for life saving organ transplants has exceeded the supply; waiting patients and transplant teams are desperate. According to Charles Krauthammer’s article, “Yes, Let’s Pay For Organs,” about 62,000 Americans are desperately awaiting organ transplantation to save their life (620). In the articles, “Yes, Let’s Pay For Organs” and “Payment For Living Organ Donation Should Be Legalised” by Amy L. Friedman, both authors focus on: payment plans for selling/buying of organs, for whom the selling/buying of organs would benefit, and the health risk of selling/buying organs.
The Pennsylvania Program plans to begin paying the relatives of organs donors $300 towards funeral expenses (620). Pennsylvania would be the first jurisdiction in the country to reward organ donations (620). The Pennsylvania Program is not justified, it is too timid. It seeks clean hands by paying third parties-the funeral homes-rather than giving cash directly to the relatives. In contrast, why not pay the relatives directly; why not $3,000 instead of $300 (621)? Krauthammer exclaims,” What is wrong with rewarding people, poor or not, for a dead relative’s organ? (620).” Conversely, Amy L. Friedman believes, living Americans should be allowed to sell their organs for money. Friedman debates, if payment or reward for living donors can be made legitimate and ethically consistent with other accepted medical practices, exploitation can be prevented and both donors and recipients can be treated equitably (746). According to Krauthammer, Pennsylvania’s idea will disproportionately affect the poor; the rich will not be moved by a $300 reward (620). The poor will succumb to the incentive and provide organs. After all, $3,000 is real money, even for bankers and lawyers (621). Furthermore, The Pennsylvania Program crosses a fateful ethical line regarding...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document