In a New York Times article titled “Opting In vs. Opting Out”, Richard Thaler highlights an important issue regarding transplant policy. Currently we have a system where there is no market for organs but rather a government regulated list system where organ transplants are given by need. Some argue, as Thaler does, that setting up a market for organs (allowing people to sell and buy organs from each other) would be a more effective way to deal with transplants. It would introduce monetary incentives for people to donate their organs which would likely increase the number of organs being donated, and so less people would die while waiting for an organ on the transplant list. In 2006 alone, it is estimated that 3,916 people died while waiting for an organ (Thaler, New York Times, 2009).
Thaler goes on to discuss why organ donation is government regulated instead of a free market. One main reason is that the richest people would be able to buy organs at the expense of those who are poor. Another main reason is that some people believe it is immoral to provide incentives for poor people to sell their organs when they would not normally do so.
In the second half of the article, Thaler discusses a specific policy that might entice people to donate kidneys and bypass the issue of introducing a market into organ transplants altogether. We currently have an “opt-in” policy in the United States. This means that people must take a specific action (such as stating that they want to be an organ donor when receiving/renewing their license) to become an organ donor. Another way is to have an “opt-out” policy, in which it is presumed that all people are organ donors unless they specifically state that they are not. It seems that countries with an “opt-out” policy have a higher rate of organ donations than those with an “opt-in” policy.
As a psychology major, I personally found the “opt-in” versus “opt-out” phenomenon to be very interesting. It makes perfect sense that an opt-out policy would result in higher donation rates because of group mentality. In general, it’s harder to go against the grain and when the general policy is one that makes organ donors the in-group, you’re going to have less people who want to be a part of the out-group (non-organ-donors). The question to be answered is whether or not an opt-out policy is morally sound.
To read this article go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/business/economy/27view.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=transplants&st=cse
This is so interesting to me! While I feel strongly against enticing people to donate their organs with monetary incentive, I am a strong advocate of the "opt-out" policy and I personally see no reason why this is not morally sound. People would be given just as much of a choice as they would with "opt-in." I think it is pretty safe to say that a large majority of the people who do not donate their organs don't simply because they were too lazy to register themselves or "didn't get around to it." Those people who feel strongly about not donating would be able to opt-out. Not only would there be more organs up for donation, but less work for the people on the other end of registration. I would hope there would be a lot less people opt-ing out then there are currently opt-ing in.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! :)