There is a severe and chronic shortage of transplant organs in America.
This year, 6,000 people will die waiting for an organ transplant that could have saved their life. Nearly 100,000 patients are on the waitlist, but only 28,000 transplants were performed last year. Although states have passed laws requiring hospitals to ask families about tissue donation and have created organ donor check-offs for drivers licenses, there still are not enough donors to meet the demand for organs.
There are two possible ways to close the gap. You could be forced to opt-out of being an organ donor instead of needing to opt-in to the system. Brazil has operated under an opt-out system since 1998. All adults are considered organ donors unless they fill out a form requesting not to be a donor. But this is deceptive. The government is trying to prevent its citizens from seriously thinking about organ donation - they are encouraged to avoid making a hard decision. A more honest and moral solution would be to provide individuals with an incentive to give their organs and tissue after they die.
This is not an easy issue to think about. Most would prefer to ignore squeamish topics such as organ donation and their inevitable death. But ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Some argue that rewarding donors is a first step on a road that will lead us to a society that has no value for human life - a culture that only values ends and does not care about means. It doesn't.
Individuals have an absolute right to make decisions concerning their body, but that does not mean that they have a right to ignore reality. Decisions have consequences, and there is no good in sheltering individuals from the consequences of their actions. The need for organs is real for thousands of Americans, and human nature is not changing anytime soon.
It is wrong to trick people into donating their kidneys, pancreas, liver, lungs or heart when they are not completely comfortable with that decision. This is essentially what an opt-out system does. It forces someone who is ambivalent about organ and tissue donation - or someone who just wants to ignore the issue - to become a donor. The understanding should be that either an individual makes decisions about his body or his loved ones make decisions on his behalf.
Making the decision to donate your organs or tissues after you die can save up to eight lives. The knowledge that one may eventually dramatically improve someone else's life is certainly a reward in and of itself. But it unfortunately is not enough of a reward for many Americans. Although there is nothing wrong with someone objecting to organ donation for personal reasons, those who do make the choice to improve others' lives with their own should be rewarded.
A free market in human organs is a nightmare scenario. The transplant and provision of human organs is, and should be, heavily regulated. Those who are personally uncomfortable with organ donation will never get enough material compensation to change their mind.
The decision will never be an economic one. However, a monetary incentive would give individuals a good reason to think critically about the issue. It is currently easy to ignore a check box on government forms, but if you got a $100 for checking that box, you might take a second to think it over.
It is impossible to put a price on a human life, but it is possible to put a price on what it costs to keep someone alive. The cost might be a tax increase of a dollar per person to reward donors for saving lives - which is a cost worth paying.
Xander Zebrose is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major. He can be reached at Alexander.Zebrose@tufts.edu.
