The Case for Compensation in Kidney Transplants-WSJ

[NDXUFan]

Cash for kidneys will solve the organ shortage, save money spent on dialysis, and then we'll wonder why it took so long

Mark J. Perry | January 18, 2014, 3:27 pm

Economists Gary Becker and Julio Elias make the case in today's WSJ that a market for organs and donor compensation of about $15,000 would eliminate the growing kidney shortage. As the chart above shows, the kidney waiting list has nearly doubled from 50,000 in 2001 to almost 99,000 today, while the number of annual kidney transplant operations has increased only slightly from 14,279 in 2001 to fewer than 17,000 in 2013. Over the last eight years, kidney transplants have remained stuck at slightly below 17,000 per year, while the kidney waiting list has swelled by almost 30,000. Therefore, there an additional 30,000 patients today (99,000) than in 2006 (69,600) competing for the same number of transplants. And that's why, as Becker and Elias point out, the average waiting time for a kidney has increased to 4.5 years from 2.9 years a decade ago. The authors argue that "Paying donors for their organs would finally eliminate the supply-demand gap."

Isn't donor compensation immoral? No, according to Becker and Elias (emphasis added:

The idea of paying organ donors has met with strong opposition from some (but not all) transplant surgeons and other doctors, as well as various academics, political leaders and others. Critics have claimed that paying for organs would be ineffective, that payment would be immoral because it involves the sale of body parts and that the main donors would be the desperate poor, who could come to regret their decision. In short, critics believe that monetary payments for organs would be repugnant.

Whether paying donors is immoral because it involves the sale of organs is a much more subjective matter, but we question this assertion, given the very serious problems with the present system. Any claim about the supposed immorality of organ sales should be weighed against the morality of preventing thousands of deaths each year and improving the quality of life of those waiting for organs.

How can paying for organs to increase their supply be more immoral than the injustice of the present system?

Wouldn't donor compensation exploit the poor? No, according to the authors:

Though the poor would be more likely to sell their kidneys and other organs, they also suffer more than others from the current scarcity. Today, the rich often don't wait as long as others for organs since some of them go to countries such as India, where they can arrange for transplants in the underground medical sector, and others (such as the late Steve Jobs) manage to jump the queue by having residence in several states or other means. The sale of organs would make them more available to the poor, and Medicaid could help pay for the added cost of transplant surgery.

How would donor compensation affect altruism (the current system that bans donor compensation and forces the price of a kidney to be $0.00, and actually negative when considering the donor's time off work, etc.)?:

The altruistic giving of organs might decline with an open market, since the incentive to give organs to a relative, friend or anyone else would be weaker when organs are readily available to buy. On the other hand, the altruistic giving of money to those in need of organs could increase to help them pay for the cost of organ transplants.

How would donor compensation affect the price of kidney transplant operations and the cost of dialysis?

Paying for organs would lead to more transplants--and thereby, perhaps, to a large increase in the overall medical costs of transplantation. But it would save the cost of dialysis for people waiting for kidney transplants and other costs to individuals waiting for other organs. More important, it would prevent thousands of deaths and improve the quality of life among those who now must wait years before getting the organs they need.

What's the bottom line (emphasis added)?

Initially, a market in the purchase and sale of organs would seem strange, and many might continue to consider that market "repugnant." Over time, however, the sale of organs would grow to be accepted, just as the voluntary military now has widespread support.

Eventually, t

he advantages of allowing payment for organs would become obvious. At that point, people will wonder why it took so long to adopt such an obvious and sensible solution to the shortage of organs for transplant.

[NDXUFan]

It is amazing that the very same people who do not want you to pay for a kidney transplant are the very same people who will scan your wallet for $250,000 if you need a kidney transplant, claiming that "They cannot work for free." Yet, the same people insist that the donor must work for free." Tell me, where else in the world is someone expected to work for free without compensation, while taking an incredible risk????

[toomuchbaloney]

It will be the poor who will seek this reimbursement much like it is the poor who visit the "plasma banks" for purpose of creating cash flow.

[NurseRies, BSN, RN]

If you need a kidney, as long as the person is tested and clean, I don't think you would care who it came from, whether poor, rich, homeless, old, young, male, female, black, white, etc... If they need the money and you need the kidney, sounds like a win win to me.

[NDXUFan]

I worked in the welfare building for years and it is the claim that people hide behind when they cannot refute the thesis. They claim to love the poor while living miles away from them.

[NDXUFan]

The compensation does not have to be money, it could be free health insurance, college tuition, etc.

[TheCommuter, BSN, RN]

We might as well do the same thing for liver transplantation, too.

Since a healthy liver is capable of regenerating, a person could theoretically sell a portion of his/her liver to a sick person who desperately needs it.

[Chisca, RN]

I think the various transplant foundations are the ones keeping the system the way it is. Our local foundation refused to be merged with a larger group out of Nashville when it was proven this would lead to a larger supply of available organs. They didn't want to give up their power. The metropolitian area around Memphis is a million people and the group responsible for local donation can barely provide 150 kidneys and livers a year. Something needs to change but I don't see it coming from UNOS or any local groups.

[elkpark]

I strongly suggest that anyone thinking compensation for organs might be a good idea watch the domumentary "Iranian Kidney Bargain Sale."

[NDXUFan]

I would be happy to give someone a liver, because everything else about me is pretty normal, except for my kidneys. :)

[NDXUFan]

I watched it. No one is forcing the individual to sell the donate a kidney, a firearm is not being placed to their head to donate..... Many people hide behind the poor, when they are unable to refute the arguement. I worked in the public assistance building, I know that thesis very well. I am not sure why decisions like this should be made by third parties who only benefit from the donation, in a monetary sense, to the tune of $250K. The individuals who are reaping the rewards are not taking any risk, whatsoever. Why are third parties making decisions for others when they would not let other third parties make decisions for their lives, hypocrisy, again? They complain about money, when they are the ones having money coming out of their ears.

[NDXUFan]

Having worked for the government and studied politics for over 30 years, I have never been surprised about how much people love power. We need someone to file a lawsuit against UNOS and these other groups, enough is enough.