1the Organ Shortage Demands Changeinsert Your Informationgeneral Purpo ✓ Solved

1 The Organ Shortage Demands Change Insert your information General Purpose: To persuade Specific Purpose: At the end of my speech I hope that The Organ Transplant Act of 1984 be changed so that compensation in some form be allowed to donors which would increase donations and reduce the number of people still waiting for organs. 2 Central Idea: The Organ Transplant Act of 1984 is a U.S. federal legislation that prohibits the sale or any type of payment to the donors of organs. This Act applies to every situation no matter the case. I believe that the Act should be changed to allow donors to be compensated in some way that is regulated by the Government which would likely reduce the number of people still waiting for someone to donate.

There is a shortage of donors and the current system is failing to provide the necessary things needed to the people waiting for organs and to the donors themselves. I. Introduction a. A quote from the United Network for Organ Sharing says “without the organ donor, there is no story, no hope, no transplant. But when there is an organ donor, life springs from death, sorrow turns to hope, and a terrible loss becomes a gift.†b.

Give the audience a reason to listen: Some of you may have experienced or known someone who has needed an organ transplant, and if not, I know that you can still recognize that it is something that people deal with in their daily lives. c. Establish your credibility: As someone who is aspiring to be in the medical field one day and has also seen a person pretty close to me go through the experience and process, I feel that this is a topic worth thinking about and seeing if change to the current legislation would be better for society. 3 d. Reveal the law: The legislation is called the Organ Transplant Act of 1984 and it prohibits the sale or compensation of organs from donors. e. Preview the speech: So today, I will explain more about the Organ Transplant Act, I will propose the changes that should be implemented within the Act and the benefits that it can bring to society, I will explain some of the opposing viewpoints which prevent the Act from being changed, and finally, I will be giving the audience a certain plan that they can do to help change this Legislation.

II. Body a. According to Barbara Mantel’s article (2011, April 15) “Organ Donations†written for CQ Researcher, more than 110,000 Americans are on the waitlist for organ-transplants. She states that kidneys account for about 60 percent of those on the waitlist but can take up to 5 years until they find one. i. Not only that but since 2000 the waiting list has doubled and will only continue to do so unless things change. b.

Some organs are given based off of a score patients receive depending on their chance of survival but for kidneys it’s determined by how long you wait. i. This system does not help diminish the shortage that is occurring c. In 2012, Alex Tabarrok wrote in his article “Around the World, Innovative Programs Boost Organ Donations†that Iran is the only country that has 4 eliminated the shortage of transplant organs, but they do have a legal system of paying for donations. i. They began in 1988 and stopped the shortage by 1999 d. In another article called the “Great Debate: Should Organ Donors Be Paid?†(2009, August 10) written by Rachael Rettner, it says that keeping a patient on dialysis is expensive and can cost around 000 to 000 per year and it would benefit the government to just pay for the transplant and incentive for the donors. e.

According to the article “Step One in Solving the Organ Shortage: Become an Organ Donorâ€, 95 percent of people support the concept of organ donation but only 54 percent sign up to donate when they die Transition: These statistics and facts show that many people in the united states are in need of a transplant, but the shortage stops that from happening while the number continues to grow. This shortage and the unnecessary death of people can be prevented but, in order to do this, the legislation must be changed. f. Thus, I propose that there should be some form of compensation for those who are willing to donate so that they can also benefit from this procedure and potentially increase the amount of people willing to give. g.

If the Organ Transplant Act can be changed, the amount of people that could be helped would increase and there would be no shortage because of an increase in donors. i. According to Amy L Friedman (2006), an associate professor of surgery, wrote in her article “Payment for living organ donation 5 should be legalized†that donors not only have to pay for transportation to the site of surgery, but they get no compensation for lost wages at work either. She believes that these reasons might be stopping many from donating. 1. Compensating would allow everyone from the donor to the patient to receive something and be treated equally. ii.

In Alex Tabarrok’s article (2012), Nobel Laureate economist Gary Becker and Julio Elias estimated that if only 15000 were given to donors, there would be no shortage of kidneys in the U.S but the Federal Gov would have to pay so there would be no inequality. iii. The National Kidney Foundation (2017) also agreed that compensation should be given to donors to make it cost neutral and pay for things like travel expense, wages, medical care, and follow up care for donors. 1. Giving to the families of those who donate in some form could also work. iv. The US could even save up to billion a year according to Robert Gebelhoff in his article, “Compensation for organ donors: A primer†written in 2015.

1. All of these reasons would likely increase the amount of donations and reduce the shortage of organs. 6 Transition: A change in the federal legislation that includes the modifications I have proposed, can save the lives of those who are still waiting for a donor and a transplant. However, there are still some people who oppose this change of legislation. h. Some of the opposing views to changing the legislation includes the belief that doing this would in turn exploit the poor. i.

But there are many ways to prevent this from happening ii. In the article written by Dr. Joseph Fins (2009, February 9) called “Should Organ Donors Be Compensated?â€, another Dr. Sally Satel, an organ donor herself, states within that same article that to protect the poor and desperate there should be compensation that would not appeal to these groups, specifically, no cash for kidneys. 1.

However, instead they could compensate in the form of a 401k contribution, or even a Medicare voucher which would stop them from making any hasty decisions. 2. Or they could prevent the poor from contributing at all unless they were completely healthy and checked by doctors first. 3. Also, everything would need to be regulated and compensated by the Gov. to keep everything equal from paying to who ends up receiving the donation. iii.

Another opposition is that altruistic or religious giving would stop. 1. According to the article “Financial Incentives for Organ Donation†written for the US department of Health and 7 Human Services, altruistic giving has been going on for about 30 years, but it might be time for a new approach, and it would be ethical because of concern for patients and saving lives. a. The current altruistic system of donations is just not providing enough. 2.

Barbara Mantel’s article for CQ Researcher, says that a study found that poor people were more willing to donate with no payment than people who were wealthier. Introducing payments to that did nothing to change the outcome. a. It also concluded that altruistic donation would not be affected either. III. Signpost: As you can see, there are many views regarding this topic and legislation.

Those who oppose it, oppose it due to their fear of problems and implications that could arise; however, we must also think about those that are suffering and have waited for such a long time and think about more ways to help them. IV. Plan of action: a. In order to reduce the amount of people still on the waitlist for those organs, I believe that a change to the legislation could be a possible way to make it work. b. All of us can aid in this by doing different things.

8 c. The National Kidney Foundation (2017) states that a way to help is to educate families, friends, and patients on how to find donors when they are struggling to do so. i. Not only that but learning more about the issue in general ii. They also state that peer mentoring from a donor to potential donors could be beneficial d. Another step is to educate yourself and consider, even if only a little bit, to become a donor yourself. i.

When you renew your license, you can also put that you would be an organ donor if anything happens as well. ii. Whether we are compensated or not the act itself is still something that takes a lot of courage from all who donate. e. These are just some things we can think about and do in our own lives to help the issue at hand. But we still need to try to get the legislation changed to see more of an impact. V.

Conclusion a. To reiterate, I propose that the Organ Transplant Act be changed and should include compensation for anyone that is willing to donate any organ at any point in their lives whether it be money or even just paying for their expenses which would raise donation rate and reduce the shortage over time. 9 i. Research shows that not only could this raise donation rate and finally stop the shortage, but it saves the US a lot of money as well and everyone would benefit. ii. Although there are those who oppose the Act from changing, there are many ways that the US Government could regulate the compensations in a way that is safe and would benefit all. iii.

Finally, I discussed a plan of action that I hope can be accomplished and something we can all do to bring awareness to the issue. b. If we do this many more people who die unnecessarily and suffer from this could live, and finally be free from hoping that one day, they will be able to receive what they desperately needed. All we need to do is to take the first step and see where it can take us. References Financial Incentives for Organ Donation (n.d.). U.S Department of Health & Human Services.

Retrieved from incentives-for-organ-donation/ Fins, Dr. J. (2009, February 9). Should Organ Donors Be Compensated? Weill Cornell Medicine. Retrieved from organ-donors-be-compensated Friedman, A.

L. (2006). Payment for living organ donation should be legalised. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), ), 746–748. Gebelhoff, R. (2015, December 28). Compensation for organ donors: A primer.

Retrieved from theory/wp/2015/12/28/compensation-for-organ-donors-a-primer/ Mantel, B. (2011, April 15). Organ donations. CQ Researcher, 21,. Retrieved from National Kidney Foundation Position on Increasing Organ Donation and Transplantation. (2017, May 25). Retrieved from foundation-position-increasing-organ-donation-and-transplantation Rettner, R. (2009, August 10).

Great Debate: Should Organ Donors Be Paid? Retrieved from Step One in Solving the Organ Shortage: Become an Organ Donor. (2018, August 17). Retrieved June 22, 2020, from shortage/ Tabarrok, A. (2012). Around the World, Innovative Programs Boost Organ Donations. In D.

A. Henningfeld (Ed.), At Issue. Organ Transplants. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press. (Reprinted from The Meat Market, Wall Street Journal, 2010, January 8) Retrieved from com.ezproxy.barry.edu/apps/doc/EJ/OVIC?u=miam50083&sid=OVIC& xid= What is UNOS?: About United Network for Organ Sharing. (2019, December 23). Retrieved June 22, 2020, from

Paper for above instructions

General Purpose: To Persuade

Specific Purpose:

By the end of this speech, I aim to convince you that the Organ Transplant Act of 1984 should be revised to allow some form of compensation for organ donors, which could significantly increase donations and reduce the waitlist for those in need of organ transplants.

Central Idea:

The Organ Transplant Act of 1984 enshrines a crucial principle by prohibiting the sale and monetary compensation for organ donations. However, this legal framework is ineffective, with over 110,000 Americans currently awaiting an organ transplant. It is imperative that we consider amendments to the Act to facilitate greater donor participation that could save countless lives.

Introduction

“Without the organ donor, there is no story, no hope, no transplant. But when there is an organ donor, life springs from death, sorrow turns to hope, and a terrible loss becomes a gift” (United Network for Organ Sharing, 2019). This powerful quote underscores the gravity of the organ shortage crisis affecting thousands of Americans. Many of you may know someone in desperate need of an organ transplant; if not, you can probably empathize with the emotional weight of waiting for a feasible solution.
As an aspiring healthcare professional who has witnessed the impact of organ shortages on individuals and families, I believe this topic merits our attention. Today, I will articulate the shortcomings of the current legislation, propose necessary changes, and outline how we can collectively advocate for this cause.

The Current Legislative Framework

Understanding the Organ Transplant Act of 1984

Passed amid concerns over organ trade and exploitation, the Organ Transplant Act of 1984 categorically prohibits any form of monetary compensation for organ donors. This legislation aims to promote altruism in organ donation; however, it ultimately has led to a staggering organ shortage.
According to Barbara Mantel (2011), more than 110,000 Americans are currently waiting for organ transplants, with kidneys accounting for 60% of those waitlisted. Alarmingly, the waitlist for kidneys has doubled since the year 2000, suggesting that the altruistic framework is inadequate and must be re-evaluated.

Inefficiencies of the Current System

Under the current system, organ allocation often relies on a scoring system that evaluates patients' urgency; for kidneys, the main factor governing transplant eligibility is the duration of the waitlist, which does nothing to alleviate the disparity (Friedman, 2006).
In Iran, however, a different approach has proven successful: the nation eliminated its organ shortage through regulated compensation for donors. As Alex Tabarrok (2012) described, this system has effectively incentivized organ donation since its implementation in 1988.

The Case for Change

Economic Considerations

The current system incurs high costs for both taxpayers and families. Rachael Rettner (2009) mentions that the expenses associated with keeping a patient on dialysis range between ,000 and ,000 annually. A single transplant could considerably reduce these costs, potentially benefitting the government financially.
Compensating organ donors could allow them to recoup travel expenses and lost wages while also maintaining their dignity (Friedman, 2006). According to Robert Gebelhoff (2015), the U.S. could save up to billion annually by changing their approach to organ donation.

Enhancing Donor Participation

Despite 95% public support for the concept of organ donation, only 54% of Americans opt to register as donors (National Kidney Foundation, 2017). Offering regulated compensation can help bridge this gap and encourage more individuals to consider organ donation as a viable option without compromising ethical standards.
Economists Gary Becker and Julio Elias estimated that a nominal sum, such as ,000 for kidney donations, could eliminate the shortage in the United States (Tabarrok, 2012).

Analyzing Opposition

Concerns About Exploitation

One of the most significant objections to compensating organ donors is the fear that it would exploit vulnerable populations. However, safeguards can be implemented to prevent abuse. Dr. Joseph Fins (2009) proposes that compensation should come in the form of 401k contributions or Medicare vouchers, averting the risk of desperation leading to poor decision-making.
Furthermore, the current altruistic model has not been effective for addressing the organ shortage. Evidence indicates that low-income individuals are more inclined to donate without compensation than those from wealthier backgrounds. Thus, the introduction of compensation may not diminish the existing altruistic donations (Mantel, 2011).

Preservation of Altruism

Some critics fear that compensating organ donors could erode altruistic behaviors that have defined organ donation for decades. Nonetheless, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services studies show that increasing payment options could ethically complement altruistic motivations, addressing the pressing need in a modern context (Department of Health and Human Services, n.d.).

Call to Action

Collective Responsibility

To mitigate the burdens of the organ shortage, I propose a proactive approach aimed at amending the Organ Transplant Act to allow for regulated compensation. What can you do to help?
- Educate yourselves and your loved ones about the importance of organ donation.
- Advocate for policy change through local community boards or engage with legislative representatives to voice your support for these changes.
- Most simply, consider becoming a registered organ donor on your driver’s license as a way to participate in this critical cause.

Conclusion

To reiterate, it is essential that we advocate for changes to the Organ Transplant Act of 1984 to allow compensation for organ donors. These reforms could lead to increased participation in organ donation, alleviating the number of people waiting for essential a transplant.
By examining the merits of compensating donors and recognizing the growing crisis of organ shortages, we can take actionable steps that benefit society as a whole. If we prioritize changing the legislation, we can save lives and provide new hope for those waiting to receive life-saving transplants.
Let us take the necessary actions to ensure that no one has to suffer the pain of waiting. It begins with our collective responsibility to advocate for change.

References

1. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Financial Incentives for Organ Donation. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/financial-incentives-for-organ-donation
2. Fins, Dr. J. (2009, February 9). Should Organ Donors Be Compensated? Weill Cornell Medicine. Retrieved from https://news.weill.cornell.edu/should-organ-donors-be-compensated
3. Friedman, A. L. (2006). Payment for Living Organ Donation Should Be Legalized. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 746–748.
4. Gebelhoff, R. (2015, December 28). Compensation for Organ Donors: A Primer. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/28/compensation-for-organ-donors-a-primer/
5. Mantel, B. (2011, April 15). Organ Donations. CQ Researcher, 21.
6. National Kidney Foundation. (2017, May 25). Position on Increasing Organ Donation and Transplantation. Retrieved from https://www.kidney.org
7. Rettner, R. (2009, August 10). Great Debate: Should Organ Donors Be Paid? Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/6438-great-debate-organ-donors-paid.html
8. Tabarrok, A. (2012). Around the World, Innovative Programs Boost Organ Donations. In D. A. Henningfeld (Ed.), Organ Transplants. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press.
9. United Network for Organ Sharing. (2019, December 23). What is UNOS?: About United Network for Organ Sharing. Retrieved from https://www.unos.org
10. Washington Post. (2015). Economics of Organ Donation. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/health/wp/2015/12/28/compensation-for-organ-donors-a-primer