We will use the details you have shared to manage your registration. You agree to the processing, storage, sharing and use of this information for the purpose of managing your registration as described in our Privacy Policy.
We will use the details you have shared to manage your newsletter subscription. You agree to the processing, storage, sharing and use of this information for the purpose of managing your subscription as described in our Privacy Policy.
We will use the information you have shared for carefully considered and specific purposes, where we believe we have a legitimate case to do so, for example to send you communications about similar products and services we offer. You can find out more about our legitimate interest activity in our Privacy Policy. Almost all donors are unemployed and in financial need, and most recipients are well-off.
On one interpretation, the worry is that organ buyers are taking advantage of the vulnerability of the poor. Buyers use this vulnerability to obtain organs for a lower price than they would have had to pay were the donors not vulnerable. This problem could be avoided by guaranteeing a minimum price for organs. Either way, if the reward is large enough that the donor would donate even if not vulnerable, then the buyer would no longer be profiting from vulnerability.
Now some will raise a new objection: this scheme risks coercion because, for those in financial need, the reward will be effectively irresistible. To avoid exploitation, we may need to ensure that incentives for organ donation are large enough that donors would donate even if they are not vulnerable. But if incentives become too large, some will regard them as coercive.
Is there any space between these two worries? Is it possible to both avoid the charge of exploitation and the charge of coercion? In some cases, perhaps not. Move on. We have more people. The reactions from transplant surgeons vary widely. Thomas Bak, a Denver surgeon who cared for Glasgow, said he had no idea she felt so negative about her experience.
Transplant programs have some inherent conflicts of interest in dealing with potential living donors. Certainly, doctors are trying to save the life of a sick patient. Less charitably, the transplant program and its doctors make money and gain prestige with every transplant performed. Some in the transplant field agree. Francis L. Delmonico, chief of transplant services at Massachusetts General Hospital. Some centers try to minimize the conflict by assigning separate surgeons to the donor and to the recipient.
There can also be conflicts between recipient and donor. For instance, should a potential donor be told that the recipient has hepatitis C, which can return and infect the new organ? Hoping to address some of these issues, a federal organ transplantation advisory council recommended hiring donor advocates to work independently with potential donors.
But many surgeons do not want an outsider involved. But Dr. Elizabeth A. Pomfret, who directs the live donor liver program at the Lahey Clinic in Burlington, Mass.
She said the arrangement is partly to eliminate surgeons' conflicts of interest, and partly to make it easier for the potential donor to disclose apprehension or pressure from family when they are not sure they want to donate. Then he thinks of his brother. I try to keep that in front of me, too. Please enter email address to continue. Please enter valid email address to continue.
Chrome Safari Continue. Be the first to know. Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
0コメント