Wednesday, August 02, 2006
The Organ Glut
My comment on a Freakonomics article, I'll start with a short quote summarizing the difficulty:
http://www.freakonomics.com/times070906.html
Freakonomics
Flesh Trade
By STEPHEN J. DUBNER and STEVEN D. LEVITT
Published: July 9, 2006
Weighing the Repugnance Factor
In the space of just a few decades, transplant surgery has become safe and reliable (to say nothing of miraculous). But success breeds demand: as more patients get new organs, more patients want them. In 2005, more than 16,000 kidney transplants were performed in the U.S., an increase of 45 percent over 10 years. But during that time, the number of people on a kidney waiting list rose by 119 percent. More than 3,500 people now die each year waiting for a kidney transplant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/magazine/09wwln_freak.html?ex=1154664000&en=1d4e5c14bdffcc6f&ei=5070
Surely, nothing could be more ironic than a relatively well-off American dying for lack of a kidney transplant. Nature, thanks to it’s love of redundancy, has created a kidney glut, not a shortage – there are nearly twice as many kidneys as anybody really needs.
I think the repugnance has been overstated, it’s more a product of fear. The largest benefit anyone could obtain from giving an organ (with or without payment) would be a general guarantee that any donor (paid or no) instantly takes precedence over anyone else for an organ if they need one later; plus an insurance policy that yields more than enough money to pay someone else for an organ later.
It’s habit more than real irrationality that keeps the kidney glut going, while patients die. Money overcomes irrationality quickly, and even habit – but not reasonable fears. So very strong legally binding insurance (not bland assurance) has to be given of the organ provider.
http://www.freakonomics.com/times070906.html
Freakonomics
Flesh Trade
By STEPHEN J. DUBNER and STEVEN D. LEVITT
Published: July 9, 2006
Weighing the Repugnance Factor
In the space of just a few decades, transplant surgery has become safe and reliable (to say nothing of miraculous). But success breeds demand: as more patients get new organs, more patients want them. In 2005, more than 16,000 kidney transplants were performed in the U.S., an increase of 45 percent over 10 years. But during that time, the number of people on a kidney waiting list rose by 119 percent. More than 3,500 people now die each year waiting for a kidney transplant.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/magazine/09wwln_freak.html?ex=1154664000&en=1d4e5c14bdffcc6f&ei=5070
Surely, nothing could be more ironic than a relatively well-off American dying for lack of a kidney transplant. Nature, thanks to it’s love of redundancy, has created a kidney glut, not a shortage – there are nearly twice as many kidneys as anybody really needs.
I think the repugnance has been overstated, it’s more a product of fear. The largest benefit anyone could obtain from giving an organ (with or without payment) would be a general guarantee that any donor (paid or no) instantly takes precedence over anyone else for an organ if they need one later; plus an insurance policy that yields more than enough money to pay someone else for an organ later.
It’s habit more than real irrationality that keeps the kidney glut going, while patients die. Money overcomes irrationality quickly, and even habit – but not reasonable fears. So very strong legally binding insurance (not bland assurance) has to be given of the organ provider.
