Re read through your articles, taking notes. Be sure to place " " around words you use. Note the research article where each of your notes come from. While reading, find 3 or 4 points that you can mak

Model 1:

Introduction:

1. Charlotte is being rushed to the hospital. She was not feeling well and passed out in her kitchen. Her husband Gary found her. She is now in the ambulance on her way to the hospital. The ambulance finally arrives, and she is rushed inside. Many tests were done. Charlotte’s liver is failing. She needs an emergency transplant, or she will not make it. The doctors are trying to find a liver, but no one is willing to donate. Gary is doing all that he can to calm their three kids, and he prays for a miracle.

2. In this situation, there are many factors to consider. Charlotte is a young mom with a family. The doctors can not find a liver to give to her, but without one, Charlotte will not make it to the end of the day. There is another alternative, however.

3. Financial compensation could be offered to organ donors to allow an increase in supply of organs.

Opposing Viewpoint:

1. Some believe financial compensation for organ donors could negatively impact donations.

• A problem with financial compensation is that only poor would feel the need to donate and the rich would not see a point in it (Parada).

• Compensation is bribing people to donate their organs, and this wrongfully exploits poor people, but (this is how I will counteract this statement) the compensation that a poor person can receive may better their life overall and allow them to accomplish more than they could with their organ. (Shaw)

• “There is a widespread condemnation among medical and transplantation professionals towards unregulated organ trade due to unjust exploitation of the poor and vulnerable persons” (page 3202 Shaw).

• “Critics argue that regulated payment to encourage living kidney donation will promote body commodification and exploitation” (Shaw, page 3202).

• “Receipt of a large sum of money as payment for a kidney was viewed as intrinsically wrong because it represented commodification of the body and the sale of body parts was viewed as diminishing a person’s dignity” (Shaw, page 3209-3210).

• “There is certainly evidence that some prospective plasma donors would be deterred from donating if compensation were offered” (Taylor, page 11).

• “by crowding out those donors who do not wish to receive compensation and crowding in those who do, the offer of compensation will lead to the collection of lower quality plasma” (page 16). – (and this has another way of looking at compensation) “subjects that were approached with no offer of payment, 43% agreed to become blood donors, while of those who were offered payment only 33% agreed. The latter number increased to 44% when the option to donate to charity was introduced” (Taylorpage 17).

• “then if the compensation offered is lower than the opportunity costs that she believes that she will incur in donating, she will not donate” (in other words, by putting a price on her donation causes the donor to believe that her donation is worth less than she originally perceived.) (Taylor)

• Compensated donors are more likely to hide parts of their pasts that would prohibit them from donating such as disease or drug use because they are donating in their best interest. Donors that are not compensated, however, are donating for their own concern of others, so they would not donate if there is something wrong with their blood. (AGAINST THIS-->) But in a study “paid cytapheresis donors were found to exhibit no increase in infectious disease history or test results beyond those of volunteer whole-blood donors” (page 23). (Taylor)

TRANSITION SENTENCE: It may be true that financial compensation can lower the quality of the donations and cause others to question donating, but financial compensation can positively impact donations more than negatively affect it.

First Argument:

Organ donations are important, and there is a need for more donations.

• “organ transplants one of the best health treatments alternatives for several diseases, generating a significant increase in organ demand” (Parada, page 1). Organ demand has increased as more patients need organ transplants.

• There has not been an increase in organ donation. This is a big problem. (Parada) There is an increase in the need for organs but not in the donation of organs.

• “In the United States, 10,000 people die every year while waiting for an organ” (Parada, page 1). Many people have a need for an organ, but they do not have the chance to receive the organ due to the lack of donations.

• “We consider the case for Chile… 2000 patients are enrolled on a waiting list, while the average number of donors per year is 125” (Parada, page 1-2). There is not enough donors to compensate for the patients on a waiting list.

Second Argument:

Financial Compensation can raise donations and have a positive impact on the government as well.

• Israel has financial compensation for donors that are still living at the time of donation (page 2). There was a rise in donations after Israel passed the reform to allow compensation. (Parada) This is an example of what financial compensation could do.

• - It would also save the government money. It says, “The results indicate that a compensation computed at the 95th percentile of the distribution would still generate savings to the health system” (Parada, page 2-3). Instead of paying for procedures like dialysis that are less likely to cure a patient, the health system should just pay a donor for their kidney.

• -Having compensation over all could close the gap between the number of organs needed and the number being donated (Parada). More donations means less need for organs.

• It is possible and better for the government to pay financial compensation. It says, “the government of the United States or private agencies already pay for the long-term treatment of dialysis, it is feasible to pay a kidney donor and, therefore, save the cost of dialysis” (Parada, page 4). Financial compensation is a cheaper alternative to some treatments.

• “Goodwin proposes incentives as the best solution for increasing the supply of human organs and decreasing the transplant tourism, black markets and exploitation” (Shaw, page 3203). Financial compensation is the best solution for the lack of organ donations.

• - “incentives would…ensure greater reliability of organs availability, promote better health habits for potential donors and recipients, and provide additional medical screening for prospective donors” (Shaw, page 3203). Donors would feel more obliged to be healthy, so they can donate for the compensation.

Third Argument:

There are many risks related to donation that financial compensation could assist donors with.

• “Although living kidney donation is considered to be relatively safe, donors are subject to medical, psychosocial and financial risk” (Shaw, page 3202). Donors go through many risks during donation and after donation.

• - “In documented cases of organ tourism, poor individuals are generally worse off financially, physically and socially than before selling a kidney” (Shaw, page 3202). Organ donation can negatively affect the life of a donor.

• - “Participants without the benefit of such leave, and those who were self-employed indicated experiencing financial hardship and emotional strain” (Shaw, page 3206). During healing, some donors go without pay.

• -“Direct costs included out-of-pocket expenses for travel and parking fees, incidental medical fees and post-discharge medication costs, as well as costs for accommodation. Indirect costs included loss of income, inability to cover mortgage payments, rent, power, phone, expenses for dependent care and housework, and day-to-day living expenses” (Shaw, page 3206). There are many costs for a donor.

Fourth Argument:

Most people accept the idea of financial compensation.

• “The majority of the public surveyed perceived financial compensation for living donors acceptable in general” (Gordon, page 269). Many believed that financial aid can be good for donors.

• “Our results corroborate Halpern et al’s (19) findings that members of all income brackets were more willing to donate when higher amounts of compensation were offered” (Gordon, page 271). Donation of a kidney can negatively affect the life of a person, no matter the income bracket, so compensation is usually accepted.

• “out of 72 economists who have studied organ donations, 68% are in favor of the…introduction of economic incentives to increase organ supply” (Parada, page 3). More economists support compensation than those who do not.

Conclusion:

Financial compensation should be offered to organ donors. Organ donations are important for patients, and the compensation can increase donations. It can also save the government money that is spent on health care. The risks of donating can cause an inability to donate, but the compensation can make donation more affordable for donors. The effects of a donation allow many to accept the idea of financial compensation. Compensation is something that can improve the lives of many patients and donors. If a donor chooses against financial compensation, they can choose to give the money to something important. Instead of keeping the money, a donor can choose to donate the money.