Jan 24, 2009
TO PAY for organ transplant, especially to live donors, is a sensitive topic, and there will never be an absolute solution acceptable to all.
However, a 'win-win' solution can be achieved without Man playing the role of God.
I am against organ trading per se, but if a sufferer can find a willing and matching donor for a fee, without coercion and undue influence, the transplant could result in less suffering for both parties - the sick patient regains his health, while the donor receives economic assistance.
[This is an example of simplistic thinking. Anyone can say without coercion and undue influence, but the moment payment is mention there is material influence. Therein lies the crux of organ trading: How can one remove the influence of economics from a commercial transaction?]
To those who are adamantly against 'paid' donors, please empathise with the sufferers - and the pain is endured by both the patient and his caregivers. The brutal outcome, at times, is that the caregiver dies before the patient, due to age, stress and a host of other issues.
Let us not assume that the donor is always poor. He may be altruistic, sincere and willing. The aid he receives helps to cover his medical costs for a deed well done. Why should he be made to suffer financially when he helps a fellow man?
On a similar issue, where organs are harvested from a dead individual under Human Organ Transplant Act, it is commendable if his family receives some form of financial assistance. The money can go towards his funeral expenses and help his living family members, like an insurance policy.
Payment is not compulsory, but for recipients who are willing and financially able, it will lighten the load of the dead individual's family. The money is not a reward but help to pay the costs of the living - and the living need to live.
Most important, if the donor is condemned to death, his intention to donate his kidneys (I guess they are the only salvageable organs) to save someone else is admirable.
However, to eliminate even an iota of doubt, only one of the kidneys should be donated to a named patient in lieu of some form of payment.
[How does that remove any doubt? Yes, cynical me wondered about the One-eyed Dragon's donation to a rich man. Admirable? Was he altruistic? I sincerely doubt it. Did he get a deal for his next of kin? I'm sure of it. Was he wrong to do so. I don't think so. I'm not going to judge him. That is for God to do so. Did he get anything for himself? Not directly, but certainly the idea that his donated kidneys will be reciprocated with some benefits to this next of kin would have been some comfort to him as he waited to be hanged. As for the suggestion to have one kidney assigned to someone on the waiting list, isn't this like robbing a condemned man? No the best thing to do in such a case is to be silent about it. Promoting death row donations raises too many ethical and moral issues. Are people more likely to be condemned to death to meet the shortfall in organs? If Death row donations become a significant source of organs, is this going to be another issue if and when we consider doing away with the death penalty? The moral and ethical minefield is best avoided.]
The other must go to the long waiting list of patients who enjoy an added chance of benefiting from this alternative source. I hope this will silence all those who doubt donor sincerity and suspect the donor 'auctioned' his kidneys to the two highest bidders.
[I don't suspect. I believe. It is a logical and rational thing to do. And you can hope all you want, but the silence will be a knowing silence, not a concurring one.]
I am in no position to discuss the advantages of patients who can afford to pay, but I would like to see better chances for those on the waiting list.
Philip Kwek
TO PAY for organ transplant, especially to live donors, is a sensitive topic, and there will never be an absolute solution acceptable to all.
However, a 'win-win' solution can be achieved without Man playing the role of God.
I am against organ trading per se, but if a sufferer can find a willing and matching donor for a fee, without coercion and undue influence, the transplant could result in less suffering for both parties - the sick patient regains his health, while the donor receives economic assistance.
[This is an example of simplistic thinking. Anyone can say without coercion and undue influence, but the moment payment is mention there is material influence. Therein lies the crux of organ trading: How can one remove the influence of economics from a commercial transaction?]
To those who are adamantly against 'paid' donors, please empathise with the sufferers - and the pain is endured by both the patient and his caregivers. The brutal outcome, at times, is that the caregiver dies before the patient, due to age, stress and a host of other issues.
Let us not assume that the donor is always poor. He may be altruistic, sincere and willing. The aid he receives helps to cover his medical costs for a deed well done. Why should he be made to suffer financially when he helps a fellow man?
On a similar issue, where organs are harvested from a dead individual under Human Organ Transplant Act, it is commendable if his family receives some form of financial assistance. The money can go towards his funeral expenses and help his living family members, like an insurance policy.
Payment is not compulsory, but for recipients who are willing and financially able, it will lighten the load of the dead individual's family. The money is not a reward but help to pay the costs of the living - and the living need to live.
Most important, if the donor is condemned to death, his intention to donate his kidneys (I guess they are the only salvageable organs) to save someone else is admirable.
However, to eliminate even an iota of doubt, only one of the kidneys should be donated to a named patient in lieu of some form of payment.
[How does that remove any doubt? Yes, cynical me wondered about the One-eyed Dragon's donation to a rich man. Admirable? Was he altruistic? I sincerely doubt it. Did he get a deal for his next of kin? I'm sure of it. Was he wrong to do so. I don't think so. I'm not going to judge him. That is for God to do so. Did he get anything for himself? Not directly, but certainly the idea that his donated kidneys will be reciprocated with some benefits to this next of kin would have been some comfort to him as he waited to be hanged. As for the suggestion to have one kidney assigned to someone on the waiting list, isn't this like robbing a condemned man? No the best thing to do in such a case is to be silent about it. Promoting death row donations raises too many ethical and moral issues. Are people more likely to be condemned to death to meet the shortfall in organs? If Death row donations become a significant source of organs, is this going to be another issue if and when we consider doing away with the death penalty? The moral and ethical minefield is best avoided.]
The other must go to the long waiting list of patients who enjoy an added chance of benefiting from this alternative source. I hope this will silence all those who doubt donor sincerity and suspect the donor 'auctioned' his kidneys to the two highest bidders.
[I don't suspect. I believe. It is a logical and rational thing to do. And you can hope all you want, but the silence will be a knowing silence, not a concurring one.]
I am in no position to discuss the advantages of patients who can afford to pay, but I would like to see better chances for those on the waiting list.
Philip Kwek
No comments:
Post a Comment