Organ donor information and awareness materials

Organ Donation

A new State of Wisconsin Senate bill asks voters to decide upon a program to compensate living organ donors who choose to donate one or more of their organs. The bill which would provide a fully refundable tax credit of $20,000 for donations is an add-on to the existing legislation passed in 2004 "which allows living donors in Wisconsin to receive an income tax deduction to recoup donation expenses like travel costs and lost wages" (University of Minnesots.edu. February 2004). The bill is not a unique one as other states have introduced legislation to provide some measure of financial support to living organ donors. An example is the recent "Pennsylvania gift giving program, awarding money to a living donor or to the family of a deceased donor that can be used for reimbursement of food and lodging expenses incurred during the donation process" (ABC News.go.com. June 16, 2002).

At issue though with these and other programs is the moral and ethical dilemma associated with direct financial compensation for donation of an organ. With over 101,000 individuals waiting for an organ transplant according to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) (Rettner, R. August 10, 2009), the consideration of lack of supply to fill accelerating demand brings the debate over payment to living donors to the forefront.

Pro

According to UNOS, "the primary ethical dilemmas surrounding organ transplantation arise from the shortage of available organs" (University of Minnesota.edu. February 2004). Explicating the particulars of this statement is best framed in the context of kidney donation, as "not only is the need for this organ the greatest, but it is one of the few organs that can come from a living donor" (Rettner, R. August 10, 2009). The most recent data reflect that 16,000 kidneys were donated on an annual basis with 80,000 potential candidates for transplant (Rettner, R. August 10, 2009).

The proponents of the State Bill articulate a position that with so much need for organs particularly kidneys, this potential source (living donors) of organs is currently a major focus as a way to reduce the shortage of organs in America" (University of Minnesota.edu. February 2004). The proponent argument recognizes that there are ethical concerns with living donor incentives: donor safety and socioeconomic considerations (University of Minnesota.edu. February 2004) however, the reality of persistent shortages of kidneys underscores the necessity of examining all avenues of increasing supply; a point not lost on the American Medical Association (AMA) which "testified before the United States Congress that the shortage of organs is so critical in America, that studies need to be conducted on the effectiveness and outcomes associated with incentivized donations, including possible financial incentives" (University of Minnesota.edu. February 2004). The ethical construct for the proponent position is best summarized by the utilitarian notion of the greatest good for the greatest number of people. If lives can be saved by the donation of kidneys from living donors, is there not a moral imperative to facilitate that exchange including the use of financial incentives?