|
 Paying for organs is illegal in the U.S. But researchers say that
given how many people die waiting for kidneys each year, the results
suggest that compensation "must be seriously considered."
"The gap between the number of organs and the number of lives lost
has grown and grown," said lead author Dr. Thomas Peters, of the
University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville. "It’s
worse now than it has ever been."
The annual number of deaths that might have been prevented with a
kidney transplant grew from about 5,000 in 2004 to about 7,600 in
2013, the researchers write in JAMA Surgery.
Kidneys from living donors are preferred, because the operation is
almost twice as likely to be a success, they write. The availability
of organs from living donors has fallen by 14 percent over the past
decade, however.
According to the American Journal of Nephrology, living donors incur
out-of-pocket expenses averaging $5,000, and sometimes up to four
times that amount. The transplant recipient’s insurance covers the
donor’s medical expenses, but not transportation, lodging, childcare
or lost wages.
Still, organ donation in the U.S. is solely based on altruism. Among
the arguments against financial incentives, the researchers point
out, is that paying donors may lead to coercion, undue influence and
body modification. Also, people may be turned off from donation by
the thought of payment.
Data for the new study came from a June 2014 telephone survey of 427
male and 584 female registered and active U.S. voters with land
lines and cell phones. About 70 percent were over age 45.
Overall, 68 percent said they'd donate a kidney to anyone, and 23
percent said they would donate only to certain people like relatives
and friends. Another 9 percent said they would not donate.
When asked how a payment of $50,000 would affect their willingness
to donate, 59 percent said it would make them more willing, 9
percent said it would make them less willing and 32 percent said it
would have no effect.
The majority, regardless of age or income, supported the idea of
compensation for living donors.
[to top of second column] |
The researchers say federal laws should be changed to allow studies
of donor compensation to begin. The results of such studies could
form the basis for regulations.
"You can argue that financial incentives might not be effective, but
we argue we ought to do a trial to study this matter in a real time
fashion," Peters told Reuters Health.
An editorial published with the study argues that the disconnect
between public perception and current regulation carries an
important message to society, the medical profession legislators and
ethicists.
But the results likely won't change legislation anytime soon,
according to the editorialists, who were led by Dr. Marco Del Chiaro
of Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden.
Even just to study compensation would require changes to the law and
to administrative and approval processes, said Dr. Ron Shapiro,
surgical director of the Kidney and Pancreas Transplant Program at
Mount Sinai’s Recanati/Miller Transplantation Institute in New York
City.
He also pointed out that people's responses on a telephone survey
may not match their decisions in real-life situations.
"These are not trivial questions in terms of the real legitimate
shortage of organs for people who are on the waiting list," Shapiro
told Reuters Health.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/1RlofmG and http://bit.ly/1Rloi1T JAMA
Surgery, online March 23, 2016.
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
