Weblog 4
In the article When Altruism Isn’t Moral”, Sally Satel discusses organ donations and whether or not a system of incentives for organ donors should be put into place or not. She believes that incentives would let many more people get the organs they need as well as helping the donors with their financial troubles. Sally Satel shares a story of how the transplant program at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California would not accept an organ from a man without further investing the relationship between him and his patient She says that “Transplant professionals would have allowed a 65-year-old man to languish on dialysis for years or die while waiting for a kidney, out of fear that he might be remunerating someone for an act that would save his life”.(paragraph 17) The transplant eventually took place after the doctors were sure there was no exchange for the organ.
Sally Satel also says, “Yes, it is lethally obvious that altruism is not a valid basis for transplant policy. If we keep thinking of organs solely as gifts, there will never be enough of them”. (Paragraph 6) She has actually received a kidney from a former casual friend herself, so she knows first hand the acts of altruism. Sally believes that even though people donate organs out of generosity, they are still gaining a sense of accomplishment. They can say “Hey, I donated an organ for free, what have you done?” This is, in a sense, the same as getting physical compensation for it.
In another article, Dr. Peter Laird opposes Sally stating “My complements to the Kaiser physicians who requested, accepted and amended the offer of a kidney by Matt Thompson. This is a wonderful story of the system working well; it is not and was not an example of Altruism being immoral.”(Paragraph 6) He believes that the physicians did their job correctly so that they could not be punished for wrong doing. He also believes that Sally Satel should have spent more time educating her readers about the obligations that doctors hold, especially since she is a doctor herself.
I do believe that Sally Satel has a good point. There is a shortage of organs. She says that “there are about 78,000 people in queue for a kidney from a deceased donor. In places like California, the wait can be up to eight years.”(Paragraph 4) That is enough time for someone to die waiting for an organ. I do not understand why we would not want to give people incentives in order to save other people’s lives. It is a win-win situation. Although, I agree with Sally Satel, I also see Dr. Peter Laird’s point. There are certain rules and regulations that doctors have to follow. He says “Any physician in California that does not document appropriately their compliance with all rules and regulations is at the mercy of the California Medical Board should any inquiry take place.”(Paragraph 3) So, with the current organ donation system in place the doctor’s at Kaiser did their job. But, if the system changed then those policies would change as well.
If the system changes and there is an incentive plan in place I can see more people living and getting the organs they need. There would not be such a shortage. As sad as it is, people do not do things out of the goodness of their hearts anymore. And although some people would do it for the incentive, I still believe there would be people doing it out of acts of altruism.
Satel, Sally. “When Altruism Isn’t Moral” The American. January 30, 2009. October 23, 2009 <http://www.american.com/archive/2009/when-altruism-isnt-moral>
Laird, Peter. “When Altruism Isn’t Moral isn’t right” Dialysis from the sharp end of the needle. July 26, 2009. October 23, 2009 <http://www.billpeckham.com/from_the_sharp_end_of_the/>
