Living Organ Donors Should Be Allowed to be Compensated

Hi again, Firstly, it seems we're going around in circles a little so I just want to start by summarizing the argument thus far as I understand it. Please clarify anything that is out of place. - We both agree that patients dying of organ failure is a tragedy, even more so because it is a preventable tragedy. - We both agree that in an ideal world there would be enough volunteer donations from people who are well informed of the consequences of organ donation to cover the demand, but both realize that this is not the case. - We both agree that an organ obtained from a live donor is of superior quality to one obtained from a person recently deceased. - As far as I can see we both agree that allowing compensation for organ donation will almost certainly increase the amount of organs available for patients, but will also invariably lead to the exploitation of the poor. - Where we seem to differ is that you feel that this exploitation is justified if it means more organs available for those in need. I, however, feel that this exploitation is not justified. Furthermore, it should not even be considered until all other morally superior options have been exhausted. I hope that brings things into perspective a little more. You seem to keep bringing up points that I've already conceded, such as refuting the idea that live organs are 'just as good' as cadaver organs. I don't believe I ever made the claim that they were just as good. What I'm saying is that, while cadaver organs are of an inferior quality, they are still good enough to save a person's life over 90% of the time. Cadaver organs also have the advantage of no negative side effects on others or society when they are being used to save a person's life. 1 in 47 is certainly better odds than 1 in 18. However, 1 in 18 deaths means 17 in 18 successful cadaver transplants. I grant that it could be better, but 17/18 is still a great success rate, hardly the problematic one my opponent makes it out to be. Personally, I see absolutely no reason why EVERY deceased person's body should not be harvested of whatever organs would be beneficial to others. There is absolutely nothing lost by doing so since the person is already dead. Since I notice that only around a quarter of Americans are consenting organ donors [1], it seems to me that what we should be doing first of all is addressing the problem of so many potentially life saving organs going to waste. I have suggested two ways of going about addressing this problem, namely adopting an 'opt out' system of cadaver donor consent and prioritizing organs to people who are consenting donors themselves (see previous arguments for more details). The two aforementioned alternatives have in fact been shown to increase the supply of organs and neither are being used in the United States. They both also have, as far as I can see, zero negative consequences. Another option (which isn't as effective as my two other suggestions, but is still superior to my opponent's, in my opinion) is addressing and reforming the NHS waiting list. According to Nancy Scheper-Hughes, who seems to be somewhat of an authority on organ transplantation, the current NHS waiting lists are not appropriately representative of the actual demand for organs. This is due to people deemed inoperable being included on the lists for whatever reason. Also the same people are apparently listed on several regional lists at once. Furthermore, prioritizing organs for people under, say, 55 or 60 seems a very reasonable approach also. I assume, at this point, that Pro agrees with me that the alternatives I've listed would result in an increase in organ supply and efficiency, and that they are ethically superior to his own suggestion. I also assume that his reason for persisting with the notion that live organ donations should be compensated is due to one of, or a combination of, two things: 1. failing to realize the negative impact that his proposition will have; and 2. not accepting that the alternatives presented will make any significant difference. I don't agree that allowing people to take on high-risk jobs is the same as allowing them to sell off their organs under the apprehension that their body is a potential marketplace waiting to be tapped into. As I mentioned in the previous round, a whopping 85% of Iranians surveyed who sold their kidneys and were compensated regretted the decision and said that, given the choice again knowing what they know now, they wouldn't have sold their kidney. I know people that have become, or are working towards, becoming fire fighters, policemen, etc. and they are motivated to do so by their desire to help people, not out of a false belief that they can make easy money. These people are to be commended, not insulted by representing them in the same category as compensated, unsatisfied and disgruntled poor Iranian organ donors who have clearly been exploited. Why not ask some local fire fighters, soldiers or policemen yourself if they regret their decision to pursue their respective career? I doubt 85% of them will say yes. You seem to be missing the point entirely when you say things like "The negative effects on employment are an obvious reason -to- allow donors to be compensated." I want to stress again that the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that "...the underlying motivation of most paid kidney donors is poverty, and that lasting economic benefit after donation is limited or even negative because of the limited employability of such patients and the perceived deterioration of their health. Results from other more qualitative research are consistent with these quantitative surveys in other countries." [2]. In short, the money incentive lures the poor into making a decision that they will most likely (85% of the time) regret making. The money they receive is like putting a band-aid on a broken leg, it doesn't go very far and they suffer for the rest of their life. Legalizing organ donor compensation is about as ethical as placing a poker machine in the lounge of an institution for recovering gambling addicts. This is a real problem that we're facing that needs real solutions. For goodness sake let's investigate some solutions that are not moral and ethical abominations. It's no coincidence that systems of compensating organ donors have all been almost universally rejected worldwide as well as condemned by organizations like the WHO [2] and the Transplantation Society's ethics committee [3]. References: [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://www.who.int... [3] http://www.transplantation-soc.org...