The question of whether or not compensation should be paid for organ donations has become a controversial issue as the demand for organ transplants increases and the supply decreases. A newly formed Pittsburgh-based coalition of various groups has called upon Congress to test whether cash incentives would encourage more families to donate the organs of relatives after their deaths; more than 80,000 people are currently awaiting transplants (Associated Press, 2003). Organs such as kidneys and livers can be given by living donors; other organs are supplied by cadaveric organ donations. Most of the controversy centers on whether or not financial incentives would increase the number of donated organs, thereby saving more lives, or whether financial incentives would have a negative impact. Currently the United States forbids ôvaluable considerationö to donors for their organs since passage of the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act. Organ donations are largely made through a regulated system that is based on the altruism of donors who want to give ôthe gift of life.ö There are two sides to the financial incentive controversy: those who believe organ donors and their families should be compensated, and those who fear that compensation would have a deteriorating impact on the donor system. The controversy involves legal, medical and ethical concerns. This paper will examine these pro and con arguments.
Financial incentives will increase the number of donated organs and save thousands of lives each year. National Public Radio, on May 29, 2003, reported that more than 80,000 Americans are on waiting lists for organ donations and most will never get them; thousands on those lists die every year. The New York Organ Donor Network Web site notes that:
[O]ne donor can save up to eight lives through organ donation and improve dozens of lives through corneal, bone, skin and other tissue transplants. Across the U.S., 17 men, women and child...