Organ Donation: How to Fix the Waiting Period so People aren't Turning to Illegal Trafficking - Essay Example

Organ Donation Organ Donation Introduction Waiting periods for organ donation are mostly due to organ shortage. There are not many people donating organs to healthcare facilities and the once that do probably have defective organs that cannot be used by other people (Cameron, 2013). Organs obtained from cadavers are also mostly defective and therefore are not suitable for use by other people. According to research, organ waiting periods for organ donation are increasing every year. As the prevalence of certain diseases increase, many patients suffer damages to their organs and end up needing transplants but healthcare facilities do not have enough banks to help them. From research, I can conclude that the result has been organ trafficking and other illegal means of obtaining organs since people believe that they cannot follow formal procedures that take too much time and are mostly futile. Organ Trafficking Organ trafficking has been highlighted, severally, as a rising concern by the United Nations and other international organizations like the World Health Organization. The effects of this latest vice are far-reaching and destroy many lives directly and indirectly. However, what is the solution to this problem? Actually, I think that there are two dilemmas that need to be solved in order to make organ donation safer and formal. First, the trafficking of organs must be reduced and if possible eliminated to avoid the short-term and long-term negative consequences of the vice (Claybourne, 2012). Secondly, healthcare facilities, in collaboration with governments, should work out a way to reduce the waiting time and limit the desperate measures patients resort to in order to replace their organs. The organ trafficking industry is growing, supported by rising demand as well as illegal traffickers. Although waiting lists for organs are growing longer in developed nations, selling organs in poor nations is a temptation that many cannot resist. The rising demand for organs has significantly caused an intensification in organ trafficking across the world, and the challenges associated with transplantation are driving ethical concerns about organ trafficking and its victims to the top of the global agenda. According to Chan & Ross (2012), organ trafficking happens in 3 broad categories. Firstly, there are instances where traffickers compel or cheat the victims into donating organs. Secondly, there are instances where victims formally or informally consent to sell organs are deceived because they not remunerated for the organ or are paid less than the agreed price. Finally, susceptible people are treated for diseases, which may or may not exist and then they have their organs removed without their awareness. Different Arguments Some people argue that organ transplant is unethical because it goes against religious and cultural ideals. On the other hand, supporters of the procedure argue that letting someone die or suffer when there is a readily-available solution is not only ethical but also legally wrong. In recent years, there have been many controversies involved in the subject, especially in cases where patients reject organs and suffer side effects that leave them potentially worse than they were before they received new organs. However, in my view, the biggest and most controversial subtopic has been the financial dynamics involved in organ transplants. According to Henningfeld (2012), in the United States, healthcare facilities charge up to $250,000 to conduct organ transplant procedures on one patient. This figure is beyond the reach of most Americans and many end up dying or suffering because they cannot raise this money. However, in other parts of the world, this figure can be higher depending on the facility and the type of organ involved. Governments around the world, through healthcare legislation such as ObamaCare, have sought to bring down these costs and make them affordable to most people. However, this has been difficult because of the power that healthcare facilities have over the procedure and the limited organs still available in the global health industry (Richards, 2012). Religious organizations have waded into the debate by labeling healthcare facilities as conceited, financially-driven and inconsiderate in their treatment of patients needing organ donors. However, healthcare facilities respond that they also incur expenses when sourcing for and transplanting organs; those expenses must be covered in one way or the other. In the meantime, innocent patients continue suffering while various entities continue shifting the blame. However, amidst all this, it is important to consider that this debate has been going on for decades and no party has stepped up efforts to ensure that organ transplants are not only affordable, but also ethical. I would like to argue that the rise of organ trafficking is a direct result of the high costs and long waiting lists involved. In the United States, there are patients who have been on waiting lists for up to five years and are still waiting. Studies conducted by the US department of health and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention show that the domination of the healthcare sector by private healthcare providers is one of the biggest obstacles to making organ transplants affordable. In addition, the studies show that rising cases of terminal diseases and other serious ailments that cause irreparable damage to organs are a major challenge to organ availability and long waiting lists. According to Cameron (2013), researchers argue that if we are to solve the problem, we need to go back to the roots. I think that we need to ask ourselves why there are so many people needing organ transplants. Statistics show that compared to fifty years ago, the number of people wanting organs was far less than it is today, which means something must have changed along the way. In addition, the ratio of available organs to those wanting new organs was more decent compared to what it is now. Finally, the (very) long waiting lists that typify the challenges of organ transplants were not as long as they are now. According to research, too many people are acquiring diseases that lead to irreparable organ damage and therefore the only hope left for them is to get new organs. In addition, healthcare quality in most countries around the world is still poor even though it has improved over the years. Thirdly, lifestyles are a major cause of the diseases affecting people’s organs and leaving them needing transplants to survive. According to Epstein (2011), heart diseases and other lifestyle-oriented ailments are on the rise. Most people who need organ transplants benefit from one and, as a matter of fact, previous and current statistics point in the opposite direction. The United Network for Organ Sharing designed a detailed, up-to-date website that indicates the status of patients waiting to receive organ transplants (Henningfeld, 2012). According to the website, in the United States alone, over 85,000 people were on various waiting lists for organ transplants in 2012. The website data shows that in 2003 alone, almost 20,000 organ transplants were conducted in the United States. The organs were obtained from around 10,000 donors both living and dead. Although 20,000 transplants may look like a large number, 85,000 people are still on many waiting lists for organs and the chasm between the number of people who need organs and the number of available donor organs widens on a daily basis (Watkins, 2013). The number of donor organs has remained fairly constant over the last couple of years while the number of patients wanting organs continues increasing. Why are Waiting Periods so Long? There are many explanations as to why waiting periods for organ transplants are desperately long. According to Claybourne (2012), some researchers state that the aging population is a factor in the length of the list because as many people are getting older, most of them require new organs to cope. In truth, the world’s aging population has grown in the last ten years, putting pressure on healthcare and the government not only to take care of them but also to provide them with organs that are also limited in supply. Another interesting factor often cited is that new medical technological advancements also influence the organ donor waiting list; how exactly this happens is not yet clearly explained by research. Studies sponsored by the CDC in 2012, and conducted in the United States and Canada showed that a large percentage of organs are obtained from accident victims, hence the widespread air bag and seat belt campaigns that have intensified over the last few years (Watkins, 2013). According to an annual report prepared by the UK’s department of health, automobile accidents still remain high despite many campaigns to get passengers to wear seat belts and prevent damage – mostly physical – to their organs. Distributive Justice The notion of distributive justice has constantly arisen as the debate surrounding organ transplants intensifies. This is because there are few organs available and yet too many people want to receive them (Watkins, 2013). In economic terms, the supply is low while the demand is very high. As a result, the situation can be compared to a resource that is desperately needed by many people but is scarce and will remain scarce as long as all factors remain constant. As a matter of fact, even if all factors do not remain constant the situation is not likely to change for the better any time soon. In my view, the distributive justice theory applies in the organ transplant debate in that there is not a single right way of distributing organs, but instead many ways people can explain donating organs to others over other people. According to Watkins (2013), one criterion of distributive justice that is commonly applied in organ transplants is equal access. According to this notion, organs should be donated to a patient depending on objective aspects meant to reduce bias and partial distribution. Solutions A number of scholars have proposed ways in which the waiting period can be reduce in organ transplants. While some argue that donors or potential donors should be paid to provide organs, either in cash or state benefits, my opinion is that there are many ways to increase the supply of vital organs and reduce the waiting period for patients. The first step, according to healthcare professionals and some researchers, is to limit the current despicable wasting of good organs. Data from the CDC shows that thousands of organs are taken cadavers every year, organs that are fit for transplant. However, most of these are discarded for various reasons. Surgeons often hope to carry out transplants within 24 to 36 hours after the time an organ is recovered and kept on ice for examination. However, sometimes the window closes before the right recipient is found (Watkins, 2013). The UNOS, which manages the allocation system, will modify its formulas in December 2014 in ways that it thinks will increase the utilization of donated organs and therefore reduce wastage and the waiting period. In essence, what is the point of wasting vital organs like kidneys when millions of people need them worldwide? In the meantime, many people, possibly in their hundreds, who do benefit from transplants become sick again because they cannot afford the anti-rejection therapy drugs that cost in excess of $1,000 a month in some healthcare facilities. According to Cameron (2013), Medicare often halts payment for the drugs three years after the transplant unless the patient is disabled or old. I am convinced that the solution to this is to use political means to bring legal changes that will enable new donors to afford anti-rejection drugs (Hakim & Taube, 2012). Congress should use its powers to widen the coverage for as long as necessary. This is, currently, the only practical means for alleviating this problem. The benefits of this approach will be that people who have received new donors and can afford to use anti-rejection drugs for as long as necessary will not need to suffer permanent rejection of their new organs by their bodies and then the need for another organ. What this does is that it significantly reduces the number of return patients needing new organs when others have not even gotten a chance to undergo one transplant. Global Lobby Efforts In my view, another solution to the long waiting period is to increase the number of people who consent in advance to donate their organs for research or transplantation (Epstein, 2011). Many people already do this via driver’s license check-offs, but a stronger global lobby to get more people to donate could help increase organ supply and reduce the waiting period. Although this is a good idea, the question is, how can it be done? Not many people will just provide their organs for research, transplantation or whatever purposes people want to convince them to (Chen, 2014). There are religious and cultural factors involved that block this route, so how can they be overcome or circumvented? I think that firstly, some disincentives need to be corrected. My opinion is that healthcare insurers and governments should pay all the expenses faced by living donors – travel, dependent care while recuperating, accommodation for trips to transplant facilities for examination and then for surgery, and income lost while recovering (Chen, 2014). This will increase the number of living donors and significantly reduce the waiting period. Receiving incentives from the government and other parties is especially important for potential living donors who are poor because their main worry is the costs involved and how they can go back to their lives or lead better lives post-donation. They are selling their organs to the highest bidders, and the government should be standing in line to convince them to part with their organs. In cases where multiple organs are involved (e.g. kidneys and lungs) I propose that mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that donors shoot to the top of the transplant list if they acquire disease in their remaining organs, as well as allowing their next of kin to shoot to the top of the list of they need a transplant unexpectedly (Chen, 2014). I also propose that donors should be provided with government-funded life insurance to cater for deaths during surgery or subsequent complications from surgeries (Chan & Ross, 2012). The American Society of Transplantation in collaboration with the American Society for Surgeons have suggested pilot projects to test the impacts of many of the ideas proposed in this discussion. Most of the proposals adhere to the Declaration of Istanbul. A futuristic plan to grow organs is also being explored by various research companies and governments across the world. Although it could take time for findings to take shape, I think that the possibility could go a long way towards solving the waiting period problem permanently. Obstacles to a Global Lobby Effort Religious and cultural perspectives are the biggest obstacles to a global lobby effort to rally people to donate organs while they are still alive, and to sustain movements such as the seat belt campaign. For example, Muslims do not believe in organ donation and even operative procedures like post-mortems. Some Hindu beliefs also shun and encourage followers to shun organ donation because it is sinful. Cultural beliefs in continents such as Asia and Africa teach people to avoid organ donation because it interferes with the wholeness of the human body. Such ideals make global lobby effort because it is like trying to bring the whole world under one umbrella. The magnitude of this challenge is demonstrated by the fact that in the history of mankind, little or no events have managed to unite the world. There must always be large sections of the population that dissent, making progress virtually impossible. In my view, a global lobby effort is likely to fail – miserably – because the number of people who will not donate organs due to religious and cultural beliefs will be more than the number of people who are will heed the message and put it to practice. Conclusion Organ transplant and organ trafficking are major issues affecting the world today. The rise in diseases affecting organs and the increasing demand for organs are concerns that need addressing imminently. There is a propensity among international organizations and agencies to start highlighting problems once they have exploded into the public arena instead of preventing them when they are still simmering in small populations (Rhodes, 2012). Focus should be on root causes instead of visible and apparent causes; proactive than reactive. Lifestyle diseases, accidents, benefits for donors and other measures must be implemented and monitored urgently to bring the problems under control. References Cameron, A. (2013). Body/state. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate. Chan, W., & Ross, H. (2012). Who needs a transplant and when? Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation, 5(8), 531-539. Chen, K. (2014). Debates and Implications for Human Organ Trafficking. Public Administration Review, 74(1), 133-135. Claybourne, A. (2012). What are the limits of organ transplants? Chicago, Ill.: Raintree. Epstein, M. (2011). Sociological and Ethical Issues in Transplant Commercialism. Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation, 14(2), 134-139. Hakim, N., & Taube, D. (2012). Introduction to Organ Transplantation (2nd ed.). Singapore: World Scientific. Henningfeld, D. (2012). Organ transplants. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. Rhodes, R. (2012). Medicine and social justice: Essays on the distribution of health care (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Richards, J. (2012). The ethics of transplants: Why careless thought costs lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Watkins, C. (2013). Is selling body parts ethical? Detroit: Greenhaven Press. Read More