Unavailability of kidney donors has continued to be a crucial issue that needs to be well addressed. Thousands of people lose their lives while hanging on the believe that they will get a donor. The writers in the two articles have expressed their feels and thought towards the issue, and given possible solutions that would help reduce the hazard. This paper compares and contrasts the two articles, critically analyzing their thought on the availability or unavailability thereof.
Both writers do agree that the issue of kidney donation should be addressed and given the seriousness it deserves. They show concern and are bothered by the fact that people die because of a shortage of donors, not because the donors are unavailable, but because of some rules set by the institutions. Tabarrok wrote that signing one's organ donor card should be considered as entry into the club of prospective organ recipients. He further commented on the current UNOS policy being that organs are a "national resource." It is such mentalities that make potential donors shy away. Postrel wrote about transplant centers flatly refusing "directed donations" to particular patients. He further pointed out that some people do argue that it is biased for patients to jump the queue with own advantage and an impressive narrative. Other people maintain that such donors are not to be trustworthy.
Tabarrok and Postrel, however, show differentiated thoughts on how best to curb the transplant issue. Tabarrok wrote that what is obligatory to put an end to the shortage of human organs, and to protect the thousands of individuals who pass on because of the scarcity, is a reconsidering of the moral foundation of body assortment and donation. Moreover, he mentioned that organs should not be possessed by the entire nation, but rather by the owner and every other prospective organ donor. Postrel, on the contrary, wrote that compensating the donors possibly will, in fact, be of assistance to low-income Americans, who are suspiciously likely to suffer from kidney disease. He added that one full year of tax exempting for donors would push rich people to support. A fund to make up for lost earnings would permit many then willing friends and relatives to chip in and contribute.
Tabarrok suggested that the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) should think through constraining organ transplants to only those who formerly approved to be organ donors; in other words, a "no-give no-take" regulation. While it is fathomable that some individuals may have reservations about becoming donors for private or religious motives, it is common sense to think that a person who was unwilling to donate his/ her organ be permitted to receive one.
Postrels suggestions were different. He had earlier on given compensation as a method of encouraging people to donate, however, since Federal law does not allow transplant centers and patients from reimbursing donors, the donors should take upon themselves to show willingness in giving, and clearly showing their disinterest in monetary compensations.
Although these writers have their differences, they both agree that having a kidney problem is inevitable. Of importance, is that people understand that anyone could find themselves in need of an organ. It does not have to be a give and receive situation for one to be willing to donate. States and institutions should do away with laws barring people from donation. Additionally, not every donor is interested in compensation; some do it completely out of the will.
Cite this page
Comparing Tabarrok and Postrels Essays on Organ Donation. (2019, Aug 28). Retrieved from https://speedypaper.com/essays/comparing-tabarrok-and-postrels-essays-on-organ-donation
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal: