It is not necessary to change these criteria in order to make use of financial compensation.
In 2001, for the first time ever, the number of living donors exceeded the number of cadaveric donors (see Figure Three).
I greatly admire and respect all who choose to donate an organ (primarily kidneys although parts of a liver can also be donated).
Forward approaches involve offering some type of incentive for people to become part of an organ donor registry so that if they die under circumstances where they can donate, their organs will be recovered.
An incentive to donate, for example, could be created by something as simple as offering a discount on driver’s licenses to those who sign up to be an organ donor.
No one wants to reduce medical progress or increase the number of auto accidents, so longer waiting lists are not entirely to be bemoaned.
Nevertheless, our current organ procurement system is a terrible failure.Altruism is a fine thing but it is in short supply.We may hope for love but should plan on self-interest.Indeed, the primary cause of so-called organ tourism—rich people flying to poor countries like India to undergo a transplant from a poor, living donor—is the shortage of organs in the West.By allowing compensation for cadaveric donations we’ll increase the domestic supply and reduce the demand for people to fly to poorer countries for living donation.very year the shortage of human organs grows worse.Between 19, for example, the waiting list for an organ transplant more than doubled from under 30,000 to just over 80,000 (see Figure One).As a result, the number of deaths while on the waiting list has also been steadily increasing and is now approximately 6500 deaths a year.In fact, although the 6500 figure is widely quoted, it is an underestimate of the number of deaths due to the shortage.Most obviously, the shortage greatly reduces the quality of life for those on dialysis or otherwise waiting for a transplant.Another, rarely acknowledged cost of the shortage is the increased use of living donors.