More than 100,000 Americans are waiting for an organ transplant, and more than 6,000 people die each year while waiting for an organ transplant. From an economic perspective, the cause of the decades-long organ shortage is simple. This means that payments to organ donors are illegal. Price controls predictably create shortages.
Payment for organs has been outlawed since at least 1948. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 established the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network to allocate donations according to uniform standards. Approximately 40,000 transplants are performed annually, and more than 80% of organs come from deceased donors.
A price ceiling is the maximum legal price that a government imposes on a market. It is illegal to sell for more than the set price. When regulation is lower than the market price (called the equilibrium price) and the law is enforced (price ceilings often create a black market), scarcity occurs. Rent control is an example of a price ceiling.
Prohibiting sales sets the price to zero, which must be lower than the equilibrium price. Waiting lists and deaths are real consequences of scarcity. Lifting the payment ban should increase the number of organs available for transplantation.
Buying and selling organs is illegal, and deviating from convention can turn people off. However, this discomfort is temporary. There needs to be a better reason to continue the deadly ban.
Michael Sandel of Harvard University things that money can't buy points out two objections to “commodification,'' or the transformation of something into a commodity that can be bought and sold. The first is fairness, or concerns about being forced into a deal out of necessity. “A farmer may agree to sell his kidney or cornea to feed a starving family, but…he may be unduly forced by the circumstances.” Fairness only applies to the wealthy. It also depends on whether a person can buy organs.
The second objection is corruption, which holds that “certain moral and civic goods are diminished when they are bought and sold.” Giving is no longer a noble sacrifice, but a cash transaction. Also, monetary payments may crowd out voluntary donations.
Whether acts of desperation are voluntary is debatable. Sometimes we do something because we “have to” even though we recognize that no one is pointing a gun at us. True spontaneity may require more than the absence of coercion.
But money often improves desperate situations. Imagine a 35-year-old man, without life insurance, being the sole support for a family member who dies suddenly and unexpectedly. In addition to the emotional burden, families are likely to face financial hardship. Paying for a man's organs could help support his family. Is it good to make families dependent on charity?
Are only rich people paying for transplants? Not necessarily. Organ networks can use current standards for organ allocation while still making payments. However, wealthy people who buy their own organs will be removed from the waiting list.
I think the corruption argument is based on the view that money is inherently corrupt. But money is just a medium of exchange, and people can buy whatever they want. Money is a tool for voluntary market exchange, and exchange respects the moral values of everyone.
There are three different ways to obtain a kidney for transplant. First, you can say, “I need a kidney. You have a spare kidney, so please give me one.” I could have cried, begged, and guilt-tried the person into giving. Second, they may try to take one by force. Third, you can offer to give or do something in return.
Beg, steal, and trade. Personally, I think trade is the best way. Money only helps people reach mutually agreeable exchanges.
If you oppose paying for organs, remember that simply banning payments will not save lives. Suppose that someone's next of kin does not allow organ donation, but would agree if offered payment. Without payment, organs go to the grave, and those awaiting transplants remain in critical condition.
Opponents should provide solutions to deficiencies, rather than simply blocking what they don't like. Organ donation marketing campaigns have been ineffective. Should the government force organ harvesting from the dead? I think paying donors would be a great solution to the shortage.
Reprinted from yellow hammer
Daniel Sutter
Dr. Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics at the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and holds a Ph.D. Graduated from George Mason University.
His research interests include the social impacts of extreme weather events and disasters, the economics of news media, markets for economists and economic research, environmental regulation, and constitutional economics.
Dr. Sutter has published over 100 articles and papers and written/edited three books.
