Should live transplant kidneys come from donors or sellers?

[Zach]

Don't be shy.

[thegrammalady]

this should be a good one, zach.

[okarol]

What about family members who donate - are they altruistic? Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of loyalty and duty.

[monrein]

I say altruistic donors only with compensation for expenses.  I live in Canada where we also do not pay for blood.  I'd like to see a society in which people are educated about their social responsibility to others and in which people feel personal satisfaction and reward from volunteering (meals on wheels, hospital work, feeding the homeless....so many ways to give of oneself).  Organ donation is just a part of this continuum and those who would step up to that particular plate are very special indeed in my opinion.

I personally do not believe that people or parts of people ought to be viewed as commodities.  I lament the desperate financial situations that motivate some in poor countries to sell their children, or anything they can, simply to survive and corrupt political systems or corrupt individuals within systems make me all the more wary of such commodification.  I am grateful to live in a country where an altruistic donor's medical expenses are covered should there be problems resulting from their generous social conscience and wish that all my potential donors had that benefit available to them.  

I think that family member donors are also altruistic and that the role of the psychosocial transplant assessment is to evaluate carefully and thoroughly that these offers are not being made due to pressures about loyalty or duty.  The donor's assessment team ought to wholly have the donor's (and only the donor's) best interest at heart and I'm counting on these folks in my own situation to make absolutely sure that any potential donors are offering freely, without guilt or pressure.  I've also been clear that anyone can change their mind if they choose or if they get cold feet upon learning more about organ donation.  I'll never forget that the offer was made in the first place no matter the ultimate outcome. 

[Wallyz]

I chose the middle option, as it is closer to what i think. I think donors should be compensated for time, wages, costs and their donated tissue. I think restricting the moral reasoning of the donor is awfully thought police-y.

[Rerun]

I chose the second one as a start.  Obviously something needs to happen.  I think that presumed conscent would be the best place to start.  I think that would take the "decision" out of a hard choice for most families in a tragedy situation.  The mortician doesn't sit down with families and tell them what they are going to do to the body!  Most people would panic if they knew what happens in cremation.

[KT0930]

I chose the combination of donors and sellers, regulated by the government. While involving the government is not an ideal solution, this is the closest to what I think might have a chance of working. Currently we use a system purely of donors, with the recipient reimbursing what they can (usually very little) of lost wages, travel expenses, etc. As we're all aware, the number of people needing a transplant is ever-increasing while the number of donors has stagnated. Obviously we need to try a new system.

Hopefully I didn't get on my soapbox, that was not my intent. I was simply stating how I feel.

[Zach]

Thought this thread was interesting:
http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=9633.msg163359#msg163359

[willieandwinnie]

I chose  "Only donors (altruistic), but reimburse for expenses and lost wages" The thought of the Government involved in this makes me a little more then nervous.

[Wallyz]

I hear that, but with out the government  or another regulatory body, what prevents the selling of organs??

[Rerun]

I just realized that the government actually "saves" money by not legalizing the selling of organs and by only paying for 3 years of anti-rejection medication.  They know we will die waiting.  That saves them loads of money.

That hit me like a ton of bricks just now and I had to post it somewhere.

If you think about it..... if they legalized buying and selling of organs they would have to pay ALL those people 3 years worth of drugs.  Or, if they extended the 3 year rule they would pay more.  Then all these dialysis people would LIVE.  OMG we can't have that.  Just leave them on dialysis and they will die. It will cost more in the short term but not the LONG term.