Tick, tock, tick, tock: the clock moves forward. For most, Jack Bauer’s fictional world in the drama-series “24” is an entertaining escape from the real word; however, for some, it is a reality. Although certainly not as action-packed, patients awaiting organ transplants live their lives on a timetable. Every passing second, minute, hour, or day hinges on life or death. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network’s patient waiting list for organs reached the not-so-congratulatory 100,000 mark in October of 2008 and has since grown to over 101,000. Even with these startling statistics, more emphasis is being placed on how to more equitably distribute the available organs instead of how to increase the availability of them. And when medicine is so receptive to change, why are we leaving this issue to decompose? The creation of a market for cadaveric organs is imperative to save our already-ailing healthcare system and to those who are in desperate need of this valuable commodity.
Instead of relying on people to feel selfless due to a guilty conscious or waiting until they wake up with a purpose one morning, this market for cadaveric organs will provide a financial incentive to now sell their organs and subsequently increase supply. It can help families who were left in debt with a loved one’s loss, go towards the deceased’s favorite charity, or perhaps towards a grandchild’s college fund. Stating that markets are the “most effective institutions for providing people with goods and services,” Lloyd Cohen, the bioethicist who is credited for outlining this market, shoots down idealists who refuse to let go of the belief that altruism will overpower economic interest. It will work and just makes sense – shallow or not. In economics transferring a good from a low value to a high value will always result in a positive gain and market efficiency. What could be a better example than a cadaveric organ?
Should they be sold? Some equate this act of selling one’s organs as a shallow, repugnant form of prostitution; others, a sensible, economical concept with the capabilities to fish out the current organ transplant from the depths of despair. To ensure you stay on the sensible side, a few easily overlooked principles must be laid forth. The first deals with the definition of cadaveric. Many opponents of this theory are quick to charge full force into the argument of impoverished persons selling vital organs of their body for a few (or a lot) of bucks. This would entail trading their health for money and ultimately violating the first major principle in biomedical ethics: nonmaleficence. A person is allowed to donate blood, sperm, plasma, yet not organs as it would be severely detrimental to the donor’s life. Unfortunately these crusaders for the rights of the poor misinterpreted the meaning of cadaveric to mean alive. A cadaver is a dead body; there is no more harm to be done to a person after he or she is dead. And participation is completely optional; explicit consent must be given before death.
“Going once; going twice; sold to the gentlemen in the golden, Rolls Royce wheelchair waving his cane haphazardly through the air.” Another potential abuse of the organ-market as the disparity of the rich and the poor could result in the rich buying up the market while those who truly need the organs may not have to resources to obtain them. This objection has clout yet Cohen has left the specifics of the market forces open to those who adopt it. In America where capitalism reigns, we would inevitably see the rich jumping to the front of the organ line and buying out those made available. Equality in distribution is critical. Essentially what we need is a system in which the supply is increased and which insures the supply is fairly distributed. With government regulation we could be sure those who are in most need can buy them whether it be out of pocket or through health insurance. And when we are so concerned and focused on the allocation issue today (instead of the more pressing one), I have unequivocal faith we can handle both.
Financial incentives prompt people around the world – especially Americans – to do just about anything. Yet we still live in a society that highly regulates altruistic donors who are strangers to the recipients since we cannot comprehend how someone could be so nice without emotional involvement. In a time where we have lost all faith in all other markets, this is not one to lose faith in. This one can and will work; just ask any of the 101,00 on the list. Many will never receive one.
Bobby Laverty is a Viewpoint Writer for The Cavalier Daily.
Read More
COHEN: Charlottesville must embrace a comprehensive solution to homelessness
By Ryan Cohen | YesterdayThe city has made several past efforts to reduce homelessness, but the growing number of unhoused people suggests that these temporary solutions are simply not enough.
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 5 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | May 17, 2025Student journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
