There are roughly 96,000 people on the transplant list for kidneys in the United States. About 4,500 of them will die waiting for a match this year.
Kidney disease is on the rise in the nation. For patients nearing kidney failure, transplants are the best and often only methods of treatment. However, the rate of donations, from both living and deceased donors, has remained relatively unchanged in the last decade.
So how can the U.S. meet the demand for donors? Give people a couple thousand dollars in exchange for their kidneys, suggests a study published last week in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, which focuses on kidney-disease research and patient care.
The idea goes like this: Pay living kidney donors $10,000. The monetary incentive would then increase the number of transplants by 5 percent, which the researchers call a “very conservative estimate.” More transplants would mean better patient outcomes. And hospitals and insurance companies would save money on dialysis and other care for now-healthier patients.
Last year, 16,812 kidney transplants were performed in the U.S. Of these, 5,769 came from living donors. A 5 percent increase, applied to these figures, would add about 288 kidney donations a year.
In the study, the researchers used average costs of dialysis and similar care, transplantation and survival rates, and time spent on transplant lists to compare a payment program with typical organ-donation systems. Some of the figures and databases were Canadian, but the researchers say the results hold for the U.S. A hypothetical government or third-party-administered program that paid donors, they argue, would be less costly and more effective than the current American system, which is managed by UNOS, a private, nonprofit organization.
In the U.S., it is illegal for “any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation,” under the National Organ Transplant Act. While living donors don’t get paid for their kidneys, Medicare or private health insurance does cover the process.
Proponents of legalizing payment for organs point to the generally accepted donation of hair, blood, sperm, and eggs. While these have minimal medical risk for the donor, “it is accepted that they are sold for financial gain,” wrote surgeon Amy Friedman in a 2006 study in favor of legalizing payments for living organ donations. Many of these donations come from economically disadvantaged populations, and a hypothetical program that exchanges money for organs runs the same risk of exploiting the most needy.
There have been attempts to at least somewhat compensate living donors for their kidneys. In 2002, a former Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Bill Frist, R-Tenn., introduced legislation that would have provided reimbursement for travel expenses for living donors. In 2009, the National Kidney Foundation, a New-York based nonprofit, recommended covering funeral expenses for families who donate a relative’s organs. For some, however, even picking up the tab for travel and funeral expenses is going too far, nearing bribery. “You’re edging towards financial incentives rather than compensation,” one bioethicist told USA Today in 2009.
What We're Following See More »
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
Speaking at the funeral of former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, President Obama "compared Peres to 'other giants of the 20th century' such as Nelson Mandela and Queen Elizabeth who 'find no need to posture or traffic in what's popular in the moment.'" Among the 6,000 mourners at the service was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Obama called Abbas's presence a sign of the "unfinished business of peace" in the region.
Three million—a number that lays "bare the significant gap between Donald Trump’s bare-bones operation and the field program that Clinton and her hundreds of aides have been building for some 17 months."
In a somewhat shocking move, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president, saying a vote for him is one that voters "can be proud of." The editorial barely touches on Donald Trump, who the paper has time and again called "unfit to be president," before offering a variety of reasons for why it can't endorse Hillary Clinton. Johnson has been in the news this week for being unable to name a single world leader who he admires, after earlier this month being unable to identify "Aleppo," a major Syrian city in the middle of the country's ongoing war.
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."