Help and support us



Click here


Thank You!

 

Legalize the organ trade!!!
LONDON/ 11:45 a.m., January 05, 2011

Prominent British surgeons appealed to the government to allow a public discussion on legal organ trade for transplantation. According to the physicians the legalization will stop the "transplant tourism", will restrict the organ trafficking and increase the chance of ill people for a successful treatment, as it was stated by the AFP agency on Wednesday.
The surgeons warned the Prime Minister David Cameron that about 8.000 people were waiting for transplantation each year. At least 500 of them have practically no chance to acquire the organ legally and because of that they will probably die.

Worldwide reputable specialist for transplantations, Nadey Hakim, affirms that the patients trying to save their lives, many times support the black market with organs by their decision to undergo the transplantation in the country where there is no need to wait because of legal obstructions.

However, this "transplant tourism" has, in Mr. Hakim’s opinion, leads into a bad consequence. He has operated many patients who underwent an unprofessionally performed transplantation abroad and after having returned to Britain they had to undergo another operation.

People have recourse to the organ trade often in a desperate situation only with the aim to gain some money. The physician stated "Let’s create a system which will not allow the sale of HIV, or similarly unsuitable organs”.

John Harris, the professor of ethics, is convinced that the discussion on creation of a legal organ trade should already have started long ago. He stated "It is required by the ethics. This country allowed, without being ashamed, that there had been a lack of organs already for 30 years. Thousands of people die all over the world because they are in need of an organ".

Harris also proposed a system, according to which the donor should be paid for his/her organ. The professor asserts: "The fact that you will get some money, will not annul your altruism. The physicians also get money and they do not care less for their patients because of that. In the current system the donor is the only one who will not get anything".

The argument of the opponents of this proposal is the ethics too. The Dean for Education of the London School of Medicine and Denistry declared: "I do not think that we should use the parts of our bodies as commodities".

President of the British Transplantation Society (BTS), Keith Rigg, sees the problem in the fact that the organ trade could destruct the donation system functioning so far.

Mr. Rigg concluded: "I will be glad to discuss it with you. There are pros and cons".

Translation: Peter Janiga
Source- Author: Anna Francová

A breakthrough in the struggle with a lack of organs was reached in Singapore where the Parliament approved a draft bill of their Minister of Health Khaw Boon Wan and Singapore follows Iran in legitimate paying a compensation for the kidney donation.Compensation for the kidney donation means a coverage of increased expenses for the post-operation health care and increased rates of health insurance as a consequence of the kidney loss.“

There was unconfirmed information in the Czech Republic that the government would reimburse the organ donors in an amount of  950 EUR /this sum should compensate the lost profit and time spent in hospital/.
What about our country?
Nowadays Slovakia meets the European Union directive for the organ transplantation. Pursuant to this directive the member states must ensure that the organ donation from the deceased and living donors is voluntary and free of charge.
Indirect advantages are more suitable
We asked also the physicians for their statement to the proposed modification in the Czech Republic. The physician Eva Lacková, director of the Transplantation Center in the city of Banská Bystrica, explains: In my opinion the health insurance companies and Social Insurance Agency should participate more into the organ donation.The donor should be compensated for the loss during the sickness absence. When you donor your kidney you will spend circa one week in hospital and then 1 – 2 weeks at home so that your wound is healed. That way you lose a part of your income. The insurance companies should compensate a small settlement of the sickness absence”. Mrs. Lacková further proposes: “The insurance companies could also grant to the organ donors a free spa treatment and the organ donors could obtain a single tax allowance from the state in the year, in which they donated their kidney, as it was in cases of the blood donors“.
This form of donor motivation is, in Mrs. Lacková opinion, more suitable.The physician says: “We have never considered the direct payments in the Transplantation Committee“.She adds: „I do not find suitable to give cash to the donors, even if with a voucher that it is smart-money“. From Mrs. Lacková point of view such system can conduce to the fact that some people will consider the organ donation to be a gainful activity. She also believes that a vision of a pretty packet of money paid in cash may cause a dispute in a family. Nowadays the relatives normally donate each other their kidney for nothing. However, it is realized on the basis of their own decision, voluntariness, nobody is forced to donate. Mrs. Lacková reasons: „Direct payments can provoke the relatives into exerting pressure on a family member so that he/she donates his/her kidney because he/she will be paid for it“.
Author: the diary PLUS Jeden deň/vm