More and more think so:
Warren related an anecdote to me from an Indian surgeon to put the issue in perspective. The surgeon was at a conference in the United States, and had been badgered repeatedly by American transplant surgeons on the point that payment for organs in India just had to be stopped. Finally, the Indian surgeon had his say. He said he understood what the American surgeons were saying, but that they had to understand that getting paid $5,000 (or similar amount) for an organ for poor Indian person meant they could educate their entire family and live off of that money for the rest of their lives. There’s just too much incentive.
Related posts:
- Organ donation incentive
- How Congress is addressing the organ donor shortage
- Patients do not want their doctors paid on salary
- Courts Rule that No One Owns A Donated Organ
- My take: Ted Kennedy, media appearances, organ donation
- Universal health care: Letting personal responsibility off the hook?
- Indian Health Service needs reform
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
I once heard that there were fewer organ shortages in Europe because the default assumption is that people want to donate their organs – so if there’s no evidence to the contrary, an accident victim becomes an automatic organ donor. Of course, here in the states, the default is non-donor, and not even a driver license indicating a wish to be a donor is enough to overturn that. Anyone else have thoughts about this?
Why shouldn’t donors get paid? Everyone else (from the recepient to the hospital, the surgeons, everyone) benefits from the deal, why shouldn’t the donor (alive or dead)?
People either own their own bodies, or they don’t. Clearly, society is conflicted – in this case, they don’t.
Comments on this entry are closed.