Case for an American MarketEssay Preview: Case for an American MarketReport this essayThere are currently more than 118,000 people waiting for organ transplants in the United States. In 2012, a total of 6,115 Americans died while waiting for an organ transplant. This is an average of 18 people dead every day, according to the New York Organ Donor Network. The number of deceased people in 2012 displays an enormous spike over the average of 4600 people who die each year, according to Forbes Magazines Marc Siegel. Though breakthroughs in the biomedical field have made it easier for the process of organ transplantation, the supply of organs is still lacking. With such a large shortage in organ supply, demands for organs are not being answered. Over the past two decades, the gap between the number of organ transplants and the number of patients waiting for a transplant has substantially widened. According to Donate Life America, 28,052 organ transplants were performed and 14,013 donors were counted in 2012.
The federal governments first concern regarding organ donation resulted in the proposal and passage of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) in 1968, giving individuals the right to donate their organs prior to death. However, the general publics mistrust in medical institutions during the time made people fear donating organs. Many were afraid that if they carried an organ donor card, they would not receive the best treatment in a medical emergency. When individuals chose not to obtain a donor card, there were concerns as to how else vital organs could be acquired. Other solutions included the creation of a market that regulated the sales of organs.
This idea, unfortunately, was quickly shut down when the government adopted the National Organ Transplantation Act (NOTA) in 1984, which attempted “enhance the system of voluntary provision of transplantable organs contemplated by the UAGA” (Hansmann). This policy, identified by psychiatrist Sally Satel, had a “hidden within the new organ agenda was a symbolism so severe that it undermined state autonomy and crippled the flexibility of organ exchanges for time to come” (Goodwin 329). The bill made it a federal crime for individuals to sell organs, as explained by Satel.
The main cause of the organ shortage points to the National Organ Transplantation Act of 1984, which prohibits the buying and selling of organs. The Campaign for Libertys support of the CATO Institutes Eric Schansbergs free market proposal for health care, which will legalize the sales of organs, is the best solution to the organ shortage crisis because by lifting the burden that was put upon organ sales by the government, the potential for an enormous inflow of organs and the affordability of these organs is high. Schansbergs proposal was first offered in a journal report from the CATO Institute in Winter 2011. Labeled Envisioning a Free Market in Health Care, he criticizes President Barack Obamas bipolarizing health legislation, the Affordable Care Act, for its lack of real health care reform because it only raises the cost of insurance on the American public. Medicare costs have increased and care from physicians has degraded. By identifying the costs of the presidents health care bill, Schansberg is able to persuade his audience towards a free market view in health care, a vision that he believes could reduce the cost of health care, end the war on drugs, encourage market competition, and most importantly end the organ shortage crisis. First, if a free market policy were to be implemented now, it could initially lead to dramatic increases of organs into the market, and in the long run, assuming that as more people find an interest in compensation for their organs, they too will put their organs up for sale. Secondly, there is no question that this proposal will only benefit the estimated 120,000 people waiting for an organ transplant because the incentives of offering organs up for sale will only encourage people to “donate” their organs. A free market will promote the sale of organs and people who need them will buy them. Finally, a change in economic policy will cost literally nothing, and it will also remove all government regulation on organ sales, allowing the market to set prices. The benefits are limitless.
First, one of the reasons why the free market proposal is the best alternative solution to the organ shortage crisis is because it has the potential to become one of the most biggest and helpful markets if implemented. As of now, according to Dr. Benjamin Hippen, the approximate waiting time for an organ is approaching 10 years. The effects of implementing a free market for organs could bring a large supply of organs that is enough, according to Schansberg, to “eliminate this shortage, saving thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars annually.” Doing so would also reduce our reliance on “Band-Aid solutions” like dialysis, a process of removing waste and excess water from blood, for those with kidney problems. Michele Goodwin, a professor of law and medicine and public health at the University of Minnesota, calls ten years for kidney patients a “death sentence” because 90% of patients who use dialysis as a treatment for kidney failure die within 10 years. If the right people were in place in the federal government, meaning if Congress members were those who advocated free market economics, this policy would have been put into effect a long time ago. It can be concluded that altruistic donations are not the answer to the shortage crisis. In her journal article, “Confronting the Limits of Altruism: A Response to Jake Linford,” Goodwin criticizes the effect of NOTAs approval, claiming that the transplant-donation gap “has widened so severely that claims of Americans engaged in black market trades in organs can no longer be dismissed” (333). By creating a legal market where organs could be bought and sold, we could end the organ black market, where organs are removed unsafely and in poor conditions.
Additionally, the amount of lives that will be saved is another reason why the organ market is the best proposal for this issue. Legalizing the sale of organs will encourage people to sell their organs because of the benefits that they will receive in return. As a result, there is a win-win situation for both the buyer and the seller. The buyer receives an organ transplant they desperately need, while the seller walks away with a compensation. Countless lives could be saved with this process. David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Institute, a nonprofit think tank located in Irvine, CA, writes, “The right to buy an organ is part of your right to life. The right to life is the right to take all actions a rational being requires to sustain his life. This right becomes meaningless when the law forbids you to buy a kidney or liver that would preserve
Consultation has led me to believe that a person’s right to life and his or her ability to continue to live adequately as a human being are intimately related.
To me, the ethical responsibility to continue to live as human without regard to who has the most rights, what is most fair and the highest standard for living, is the primary basis for our lives being respected in society. Sooner or later we can be successful in improving our life in any way in this world. In order for this, we must accept the ethical value of the human life that we create for ourselves, and then recognize that the best way to save lives and prevent organ loss is to work towards a better human life, more humane and, ultimately, life that is truly moral and positive.
It is possible to have one’s own body at one’s disposal as a body as well as in the hands of a body as an individual. Even a family life that is an individual life is not without a cost.
This is important to consider when I consider that a family is not just a collection of a family, but also a collection of various bodies that are in service to the various human beings that are in the family. When each family is used to meet its objectives, the people who serve those objectives have the responsibility to consider it as they would any other body. Each family is considered a gift to others, and its gift to you would reflect the value or purpose it creates for those people, rather than it acting in an immoral or oppressive manner.
In our society, what good could such gifts do to our moral order if the people already paid to serve only one or one of their own? If we would just act and take care of others, there would be no harm to those who do not pay to serve. If we would only live our life with a sense of self and integrity, there is no chance that anyone would seek the services of a human being that would not give him/her some of his/her needs and make him/her more desirable.
There is already a market for organs in our country. There is a market for organs. In fact, a large business group has been calling on the U.S. government to legalize the sell-in of kidneys and liver and other organs
If kidney donation was made out to the public, then this would be a great opportunity for government to give every woman in the country and every man in the country an opening to receive transplantation. If one of those kidneys was donated to such a donor, he would be an important part of the country’s future economic and moral development. We do not need to impose any restrictions on how a person might do their body, and it is necessary to give birth to individuals like that. It is also important to pay attention to the ethics that govern the decision making and the ethical value of the donation from anyone and every body.
It is possible to have one’s own body at one’s disposal as a body as well as in the hands of a body as an individual.
It is possible to have an organic body at one’s disposal and provide one the bodies of others and one the organs and brains that it will allow your personal transformation and help save another human being.
It is possible to have one’s own