Organs up for Sale

In the Time magazine article, “Yes Let’s Pay for Organs,” Charles Krauthammer discusses Pennsylvania’s decision to allow relatives of the deceased to receive $300 towards funeral expenses, for the donation of the dead relative’s organs. In the story Krauthammer asks the question; “If we can do anything to alleviate the catastrophic shortage of donated organs, should we not?”(p.1). Krauthammer goes on to discuss six major points, three points defending Pennsylvania’s decision and three points outlining the problems of the proposed plan.

Krauthammer’s first objection is that Pennsylvania’s plan will disproportionately affect the poor. The rich it is argued will not be moved by a $300 dollar reward. It will be the poor who will succumb to the incentive and provide the organs. Another objection is, the plan will cross a fateful ethical line regarding human beings and the their parts. Krauthammer writes, “Until now we have upheld the principle that one must not pay for human organs because doing so turns the human body-and human life-into a commodity”(p.6). Krauthammer also points out, “Violating this principle, it is said, puts us on a slippery slope to establishing a market for body parts . . . a violation of human dignity”(p.6). “We cannot allow live kidneys to be sold on the open market. It would produce a society in which the lower orders are literally cut up to serve as spare parts for the upper,” the author argues.

Krauthammer also says; “ . . . kidneys from the dead are a different story”(p.10). If a live person can not be a commodity, could a dead person be? The author goes on to say: “There is a distinction between strip-mining a live person and strip-mining a dead one”(p.9). Though Krauthammer agrees with the plan, he believes the plan is too timid. “It (the plan) seeks clean hands by paying third parties- funeral homes -rather then giving the cash directly to the relatives,” he says (p.11). Another argument made is; Why only $300, why not $3000? After all $3000 is a lot of money, even for bankers and lawyers. Krauthammer points out that this change in monetary expenditures would solve the rich/poor concern.

Krauthammer finishes by discussing a passage from the Jewish book, The Talmud. The Talmud speaks of establishing a fence around the law, making restrictions that may not make sense in and of them selves but serve to keep one away from the more serious violations. “The prohibition we have today . . . is a fence against the commoditization of human parts. We need to move the fence in and permit incentive payments for organs from the dead”(p.13). One would ask why. “Why,” Krauthammer asks, “because there are 62,000 people desperately clinging to life, some whom will die.”(p.14).

Krauthammer makes many excellent points in the article. The Pennsylvania program has its flaws, especially those that the author points out. One flaw being that the plan only establishes a $300 credit, this credit only attracts the poor. It would be applicable to enhance the credit to a level that is much more attractive to all economic stations. The Pennsylvania plan would be agreeable if there would no holes in the legislation.

One would agree that paying for organs from the living would be degrading, but would paying for organs off the dead be a different situation. It is unethical to allow the living to auction off their organs. But this plan does not establish an auction block scenario, but an incentive program. Wouldn’t the ability to help a family member in your death be the ultimate show of honor? Everyone benefits when an incentive program is used, in granting permission for the medical use of a deceased person’s body parts.

Any libertarian would also have to disagree with the author. In a free society people ought to be given the choice whether or not to dignify themselves, or whether or not to sell their deceased relative’s organs or their own for that matter. In desperation or true love, shouldn’t a struggling mother be allowed to give what she needs away, so she can send her kids to college?

The final question comes down to this: Should there be incentive programs to reward people for donating organs of their deceased relatives, or donating organs at all? If one agrees with Krauthammer’s point of view, then the answer is yes. Pennsylvania has introduced into law a very brave new initiative, a decision that will move the moral “fence” of our society. The law is not allowing the selling or auctioning off of organs from those that are alive. It is just giving grieving-money-stressed families another payment option. This would allow new more abundant organs to be placed on the medical market. Paying for organs of the deceased, under controlled circumstances, harms no one. Helping the over, 50,000 people clinging to life, is a justifiable reason to move the “moral line”.