Changing Ideas of Organ Donation, Essay Example

Introduction

In his article, “Encourage Organ Donors With a Little Quid Pro Quo,” author Lawrence Reed presents persuasive arguments for making organ donation attractive through offering financial incentives for it. Reed begins his discussion in a way both effective and completely expected: he refers to how many people die on a daily basis simply because organs are not available for transplants. Equally effectively, he points out that the problem is not the actual supply of organs, but that those dying and/or their families predominantly refuse harvesting of them. The author then goes on to plainly state the need to change these decisions, and by means of economic incentives. He acknowledges that there are ethical concerns here, but he holds to a more pragmatic approach. People are dying unnecessarily, and encouraging donations through stressing the goodness of donating organs is simply not working: “More than simple goodwill is required to increase organ donations” (Reed 182). In addition to financial incentives, Reed also goes on to promote other means of encouragement, as in the non-profit organization, LifeSharers, which uses a system of membership as a motivation.

The author’s points appear strong, and it is difficult to refute the urgency of the situation, or the frustrations inherent within it. At the same time, it seems Reed is completely overlooking what may be the greatest impediment to donations: cultural bias and/or religious objections. More to the point, it is likely that working to reverse the fears behind organ donation refusal, rather than offering financial benefits, would do more to increase the rate of donations. People definitely are motivated by gain, but organ donation will be far more willingly done when societal values are made to shift, and culturally-based fears from the society are eliminated.

Discussion

That Reed supports some form of gain as a motivator is sensible. Furthering this approach is his willingness to discuss the factor that would render financial incentive here disagreeable, at best: “People are repulsed by the thought of a true, unrestricted ‘market’ in organs” (Reed 183). This is a critical consideration; as people are unwilling to donate because of personal feelings or cultural;/religious views, it is likely that making donation a clear-cut business process would exacerbate such feelings. He is clearly aware that sensitivity is a major component of the issue, which is why he favors initiatives that are not blatantly commercial, as in insurance companies paying large sums to beneficiaries determined by donors. Here, then, the element of financial gain as instrumental in increasing donations is valid, and attends to the reality of some form of profit as being the motivation, without it being overtly a direct transaction.

Less compelling is that Reed does not sufficiently address the very problems responsible for his subject. For instance, he notes that families often contradict the wishes of deceased relations, and refuse the deceased’s offer to donate. Acknowledging this, he then supports the initiative for cards establishing donor authorization that a family may not defy. Reed does not, however, even begin to remark on what could induce a family to deliberately ignore such a request, and this seems to be at the heart of the issue. He refers to the relatively low percentage of people able to donate who agree to, yet he does not indicate any reason for the larger lack of compliance. This indicates that Reed is overlooking the greatest obstacle to solving the problem, which is likely that people maintain strong fears and biases regarding having their organs removed.

Lastly, the attention Reed gives to the ethics of the matter is brief, and centers only on the National Kidney Foundation’s disapproval of economic incentives. Here, again, the enormously important factor of what is generating the problem in the first place is not at all considered. Reed only stresses viability and support for the financial strategies: “The American Medical Association and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons have called for Congress to authorize tests of financial incentives” (Lawrence 183). Unfortunately, the vast tides of ethical feeling objecting to donation are the real barrier, a fact Reed never directly addresses. The reality is that families contradict the wishes of deceased relations for the same reasons individuals are reluctant to donate, and these are complex and often religious in nature. Even those with no religious attachment feel that “cutting” the body violates, in some way, the totality of the person (Loewy, Loewy 203). These are widespread and powerful ethics, and the most effective means of increasing organ donations must lie in changing the underlying perceptions. The challenge is enormous but, as Reed himself indicates, even offering financial incentives can only go so far, so it appears that approaching the issue from the cultural perspective would yield better results.

Conclusion

Lawrence Reed makes valid points in his article, as he discusses an issue demanding greater attention than it currently receives. Moreover, his ideas of promoting monetary compensation as organ donation incentives are not misplaced; it is likely that such measure would, in fact, increase donation rates. Nonetheless, the far larger issue of what holds people back from donation is not discussed, and this is crucial for making a change. People are always definitely motivated by financial gain, but organ donation will be far more willingly done when societal values are encouraged to shift, and cultural and societal fears are eliminated.

Works Cited

Loewy, Erich H., & Loewy, Roberta Springer. Textbook of Healthcare Ethics. New York: Springer, 2004. Print.

Reed, Lawrence W. “Encourage Organ Donors With a Little Quid Pro Quo.” The Dolphin Writer. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2003, pp. 182-184. Print.