Living Organ Donors Should Be Allowed to be Compensated

Hi there, Thank you for posting this debate. I commend your choice of topic, as it is far from one-sided and quite controversial. I anticipate, and hope for, an interesting exchange. I plan on using this round for more of a rival opening statement similar to my opponent's, and going into detail and focusing on more detail in later rounds. I'll start out by saying that I agree with my opponent that it is alarming how much demand there is for organs verses how few donations are available. I also agree that it would certainly be in everyone's best interest to encourage a higher rate of donorship within the general community. Where we differ, however, is in our approach to what the best method is of encouraging better donorship and helping to alleviate the shortage of supply of organs. My opponent suggests that an effective way would be to allow the compensation of living donors by financial or some other means. I want to argue not only that this is a flawed method of solving the mutually recognized problem, but that there are also better and more ethical solutions. Just for the sake of clarity, by the way, is it your position that allowing compensation for living donors is the best way to address the problem of organ donor shortage, or merely that it is a suitable method among other potentially equal or superior options? My opponent rightly states that at present there is a ban on compensation being offered in exchange for organ donation, due to the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984 [1] in the United States. The reason for the ban on the sale of human organs, which is also my own main objection to the practice, is that it would likely create a market for organs which will only serve to exploit the poor. It concerns me that the poor will be the ones who are coerced into selling off their organs as if their body were a walking marketplace. The primary purpose of the NOTA was to set up a system of fairly distributing organs to donors in need. Under this act recipients are not discriminated against based on gender, ethnicity or financial status. Patients in need of a transplant are placed on a National Health Service (NHS) waiting list and receive organs accordingly when they become available. To the best of my knowledge there is no significant evidence from academic studies or other official means that would suggest that allowing compensation for organs would greatly decrease deaths of patients while waiting on transplants. At this point it's anybody's guess, but I would assume that implementing financial compensation would only serve to shift the demographic of organ recipients away from a currently equal distribution and towards the more wealthy. I would think that while some people would certainly be encouraged to donate organs who otherwise would not have, the already existing donors and prospective donors would be discouraged from doing so. The demand for organs will always likely remain higher than the supply also, so prices for organs will become competitive, thus eliminating the poor from being likely to receive a transplant. At present, there are around 30% more organ donations received in the U.S. each year from deceased organ donors than from living [2]. As well as constituting a higher number, there are a larger variety of organs able to be obtained from cadaver donations than living, the latter contributing only a kidney 90% of the time [1]. It seems to me that the best strategy to alleviate the problem of donor shortages would be to attempt to encourage more people to sign documentation giving permission for their organs to be removed and transplanted in the event of their death. In the U.S. there are only around 25% of people willing to donate their organs in the event of their death, whereas in many European countries there are 90% who are willing [3]. What's the difference? Are Europeans more generous than Americans? In fact the main difference is that in these European countries you are automatically considered a donor unless you sign paperwork to indicate otherwise while in the U.S. it is the other way around; You are considered to not be a donor unless you specifically indicate otherwise. The biggest similarity between America and Europe is that they both have a comparable proportion of people that don't tick the box concerning organ donation on their driver's license application. This seems to indicate that the majority of people in both Europe and America probably just don't give it much thought or don't wish to make a special decision either way. My first alternative to my opponent's proposal of financial compensation is for America, as well as my country of Australia and any other countries that have a similar policy, change their deceased donor permission form to adopt organ donation as a default unless specifically indicated otherwise. As simple and even laughable an idea as it is, this seems like it has the greatest potential to alleviate organ donor shortages if these statistics are anything to go on. Another innovate step towards alleviating donor shortages which I believe is also morally and ethically superior to my opponent's proposition is giving some sort of priority of organs to patients who have previously indicated that they themselves are willing to donate their organs in the event of their death. Around half of all organs transplanted each year in the U.S. go to people who themselves are not willing organ donors because they are earlier on the NHS list while willing organ donors die waiting for a transplant [4]. This seems grossly unfair in my mind. In fact, a non-profit organization has been set up with this same idea in mind called Lifesharers.org [4]. They are an organization that requires compulsory organ donor status upon joining and gives priority to its own members in the event that a member dies and another member requires a transplant. At present, the organization has over 13,000 members and is steadily growing. It is my belief that if such priority ideals were put into practice on a larger scale it would prompt a large amount of people to become organ donors in the event of their death who otherwise wouldn't have because doing so would be a sort of free insurance for themselves. In summary, I believe I have shown the negative implications of my opponent's suggested course of action and have provided multiple alternatives which I believe would not only be more effective, but are more morally and ethically sound. I look forward to your next argument, Rob. References: [1] http://cme.medscape.com... [2] http://www.ustransplant.org... [3] http://www.nytimes.com... [4] http://www.lifesharers.org...