|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Wednesday, November 13, 2002The moral argument against paying for kidneys is compelling--and we should be grateful that no profession makes all the rules (attorneys come too close for my comfort). But--yes,the interminable "but"--several years ago there was an article in the NY Times Sunday Magazine (I think) discussing this issue--An Israeli physician simply pointed out that in a transplant every one except the patient benefits financially--the surgeon, the hospital, the surgical team, the patient, the manufacturers etc.--No one, including myself,seriously suggests they should donate their time. An argument can be made that the donor plays a significantly different role in this transaction than does the professionals--however, equally persuasive is the fact in pure economic terms unbalanced transactions of this nature are not likely to be self generating and enduring--or--supply will not meet demand--I am sure there are examples of transactions similar to that articulated for transplants that are successful and enduring but I am hard pressed to identify them--I am not offering a solution and for that I apologize--however--In my own mind I think it is inappropriate to preclude a serious discussion of the economic exchanges in transplants. I can think of one system that comes pretty close to exemplifying a transaction in which people willingly and literally give of themselves to help others - the blood donation system. The same system also exemplifies the down side of paying people to donate parts of their bodies. You can give blood for either altruistic motives or financial motives in this country. People who donate their blood through the Red Cross do so altruisitically, although admittedly at less personal cost than an organ donation. You can go to almost any community and find people at schools, churches, and civic halls willingly giving up their time and their blood just to help others. However, the centers that buy blood are usually found in or near the poorest neighborhoods and are frequented by people who are desperate for cash. They usually sell their blood as a last ditch effort to get some money, often to feed a drug or alcohol habit. Desperate people make hasty decisions. A system of organs for cash would result in those who can least afford it sacrificing their health for those who may not be all that deserving. Does someone over sixty-five with hypertension really need a kidney transplant to live another five to ten years? Should they get that transplant to the detriment of some cash-strapped younger person? For, as the survey from India showed, the donor usually ends up with the shorter end of the stick in the transaction, both financially and medically. posted by Sydney on 11/13/2002 06:58:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
