Sally Satel: The Need For Organ Donation

787 Words 4 Pages
Sally Satel makes the argument that there is no such thing as indignity when receiving financial gain for the donation of an organ, and she is correct by saying such. Satel believes that in order to increase the amount of transplants that occur worldwide, there much be some sort of incentive to the donors. The types of incentives should not be regulated by the government though, because the life of an individual that needs an organ is not the business of the national government. Satel opens her argument by describing the two different methods that governments want to take to sole the organ donor and transplant crisis that is occurring in the world today. The first solutions she says that governments want to use is making organ trafficking …show more content…
Satel believes that incentives should be offered by the government to increase the amount of wealthy people that are willing to donate organs. Why should the government even get involved with the organ donation process? The organ donation process should be run strictly through a third party source, such as a charity or organization of some sort. The government should have no authority to become involved with organ donation matters. This is simply because it is not their business who receives organ donations or who does not. They should not be allowed to ban organ trafficking, nor should they be allowed to ban compensation for organ donations. If a person would like to donation an organ because they feel that it is necessary for their family then that person should be allowed to do what they see fit. Also, a flaw in Satel’s idea is that the donor’s compensation should come in form of contribution to a retirement fund, income tax credit, or tuition vouchers. All of these are types of compensation that only the government can offer from tax dollars. Governments should not be allowed to use tax dollars to provide compensation for an organ donation. Compensation should come directly from the organ acceptor, or …show more content…
She is correct by saying this because despite the personal satisfaction that may come with knowing that a live has been saved because of you, that is not enough. This argument refutes the second prong that the governments think would work best, specifically, the barring of compensation for donation. If governments were to make the compensation for organ donation illegal it would only leave the donors with the satisfaction of saving a life. Not only would this not be enough for some people, but it would drive the amount of donations down because people know there would not be any compensation for them sacrificing a part of themselves for someone they don’t even

Related Documents