October 31, 2023 • 24 mins
It can take years to get to the top of the waiting list for a donated kidney in the U.S. So when Sally Satel found out she’d need a kidney transplant, she wondered why she couldn’t just buy one. We’ll hear from a behavioral economist and a bioethicist who shed light on the ban on organ sales and whether it’s possible to create an ethical compensation program for organs.
Show notes:
In addition to Sally Satel, this episode features interviews with:
Jeffrey Kahn, Andreas C. Dracopolous Director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics
Mario Macis, Professor of Economic, Johns Hopkins Carey Business School
This episode references the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA), passed in 1984. This act established the national Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network (OPTN), which is operated by an outside contractor, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS).
The OPTN has its own ethics committee that has written guiding principles that influence how organs are allocated in the US. You can read this guidance here.
To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute’s episode guide.
The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
It went for a regular medical checkup, which as being
a doctor, of course, I hadn't done for ten years,
and my blood tests were not good.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
In two thousand and four, Sally Setel discovered her kidneys
were failing. It had come out of the blue, and
her doctor said she would eventually need a transplant.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
So it was a bit of a race against time
in a way. You know, how long would I feel
fine before having to go on dialysis? And during that period,
which turned out to be about eighteen months, I frantically
looked for someone to give me a body part.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
To get a new kidney. Sally had two choices, add
her name to the national wait list for kidneys from
deceased donors, or ask her living family members and friends
if they'd be willing to give her one of their own.
But Sally knew that wouldn't be easy. Not only would
she need someone to agree to donate their kidney, that
(00:59):
person would also have to be a match. So she
started searching, but she was also added to the list.
At that point, there were about sixty thousand people ahead
of her. It would take years.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
You know, Initially I kind of wanted to buy a
kidney to be honest, because I wanted to avoid what
I thought could be, you know, really complicated relationships.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Buying a kidney, however, is against the law in the
United States and nearly everywhere else in the world, but
black markets do exist.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
There are so many, so many desperate people just frankly
roaming the world looking for someone to save their life.
And obviously these are a people who have funds, you know,
can engage in this kind of thing, but you know,
it's our show.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Sally didn't want to be part of that, so all
she could do was convince someone to donate to her,
while she also waited her turn on the deceased donation list.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
So that was highly frustrate and by that time I
wasn't feeling very well.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Sally was still healthy enough to avoid dialysis, but she
was declining. She didn't have family she could ask, so
she started talking with her friends. Some seemed eager to help,
but then spoke to their families and changed their minds.
Others got cold feet. She connected with the Donut online
and it seemed promising, but eventually fell through.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
We actually even had a date, as they say, to
have the surgeries, and then he just totally disappeared.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
One day, she got an email from a friend with
the subject line serious offer. Finally this one was real.
They underwent the testing and it was a good match.
She got the transplant and it went well. Sally found
that she wasn't burdened by feelings of indebtedness to her
donor friend. She lived in decent health for a decade,
(02:55):
but then faced another blow.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
If you get a living kit, neither supposed to last
between fifteen to twenty years. Unfortunately mine didn't. But you know,
I had another friend who had worked with me at
the time I was going through this ordeal of trying
to get a kidney the first time. She was younger
and wanted to have kids first, which she said, if
(03:19):
you ever need another one, you know, I'll keep mine
warm and you can ask me.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
In twenty sixteen, Sally took her up on that offer.
She had a second kidney transplant. Today, Sally is doing well,
but she knows tens of thousands of others with renal
disease and not as fortunate. She's since become an advocate
for encouraging living organ donation, and she'd liked to see
a significant change happen for living organ donors. She thinks
(03:46):
they should be compensated.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
You know, people talk about an organ shortage, and that
is true, but I almost think about it in terms
of an altruism shortage.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
And so.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
What I believe we should do when I'm not alone,
I am the more outspoken folks I think, but I'm
certainly not alone in believing that we should reward people
who donate kidneys so that others will be motivated to
do the same. And you know there are money exchanges
for other bodily products. You know, we pay for plasma,
(04:20):
We pay for eggs and sperm and even bone marrow. Now,
and why shouldn't we offer people compensation or a reward
for giving a kidney and saving someone's life and saving
someone's mom, sister, spouse. You know, why shouldn't we do that?
Speaker 2 (04:42):
I'm Lauren Aurora Hutchinson. I'm the director of the Ideas
Lab at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. This season,
I'm going behind the scenes to discover how some of
the most significant medical innovations have impacted people's lives and
continue to whether it's redefining death or creating babies. A
(05:03):
new technology is usually waiting in the wings, along with
a whole entourage of ethical questions on today's show, is
it ever ethical to compensate someone for a kidney? And
why do we allow the sale of some body parts
and not others from Pushkin Industries and the Johns Hopkins
Berman Institute of Bioethics. This is playing god. Sally Stel
(05:33):
has been through quite a lot since the day her
doctor's discovered her kidneys were mysteriously failing and the prospect
of needing a third is very real. But she's also
the first to say she's been lucky, too successful transponts.
She knows that for many others the outcomes are not
as good, and that many are waiting for a kidney
they might never receive. Sally ended our conversation with a proposal,
(05:59):
since many people people are in dire need of a kidney,
and most healthy people can donate one kidney, we should
encourage more people to donate by compensating them, Which leaves
me wondering would it be ethically acceptable to use money
or other forms of compensation to incentifize living donors instead
of prohibiting it.
Speaker 4 (06:20):
You know, we have been debating that question for a
really very long time.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
This again is my colleague at the Berman Institute, Jeffrey Kahn.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
There's a big need and there's just not enough supply.
The data is that as many as one in seven
adults in the United States live with renal disease as
kidney disease, and if someone needs a kidney transplant, they
generally get added to a national wait list for a
kidney from somebody who has died, a deceased organ donor,
(06:51):
we call that, and so that puts patients like Sally
in a really tough situation. No one wants to stay
on dialysis, although that's really important to say. Dialysis is
the technology that allows people to wait. That technology has
gotten much better over the decade since it was first invented.
But it's time intensive, it is not pleasant, Your quality
(07:12):
of life is not great.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
So how did that policy come to be? What's the
history behind it.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
It's a kind of interesting history, actually, and it goes
back to nineteen eighty four when a law called the
National Organ Transplant Act NODA is its acronym, and that's
how it's referred to, was passed by Congress and that
law makes it illegal in the United States to buy
and sell organs, really to exchange anything of value in
(07:39):
return for an organ. And it was driven by a
guy who tried to create what we would think of
as an eBay for kidneys before eBay existed. He was
a physician who had lost his license, so he was
kind of a sketchy guy, but he found a way
to make some money by being the mental man and
brokering kidneys from people who you could then sell. That
(08:03):
was a driver, largely the driver in fact, that led
to the passage of the National Organ Transplant Act, And
so ever since nineteen eighty four we've had this law
in place which says you may not exchange anything of
value in return for a solid organ. Now, solid organs
are kidneys, livers, hearts, lungs, as opposed to bone marrow,
(08:26):
which is not a solid organ. But that's the distinction
that is in the law.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Can you talk a little bit about that distinction. I
know we already sell somebody parts like sperm, egg and plasma,
but ethically what makes them different from a solid organ
like a kidney.
Speaker 4 (08:41):
Well, it's a good question to ask. So you could say, well,
you know, we certainly regenerate sperm. There's no shortage of that,
and women have a certain limited but large number of
eggs from the time that they're born and bone marrow
and plasma regenerate. But you know, the truth is our
public policy is often inconsistent, and that's just the case here.
(09:04):
And so you know, the law was crafted in reaction
to a particular situation. Somebody was trying to buy and
sell kidneys, and so they passed the law to prevent
what they thought was an immoral, unethical, illegal market. And
so that's how the law was crafted. And I think
it wasn't as far thinking as the conversation we're having
(09:25):
would imply.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
So it's more of a legal distinction than an ethical one.
At the moment, it sounds like.
Speaker 4 (09:31):
Well, and the law, you know, we hope tracks to ethics,
but it doesn't always track perfectly to ethics, I guess,
is the way I would say it. But really interestingly,
there are innovations or ways that people are going about
getting a kidney that start to feel a lot like compensation,
but technically haven't been considered that for the purposes of
noda of the law.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
So what is considered ethically acceptable today that doesn't involve
a direct exchange of money between people.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
Right, So, there's now an online site called Matching donors
dot com where people like Sally put their information on
the site I need a kidney. Here's a little bit
about me, usually as a photograph, some background, and then
people who are willing to be donors can go to
that site and effectively shop for somebody that they want
(10:22):
to give their kidney to. What's a concern about that
is there's nothing that stops people from meeting this way
to make agreements about what they will receive in return
for being a donor. So that's one option. There are
two other ways that people can also access kidneys through
living donation that also start to feel like something being
(10:45):
exchanged that's valuable that isn't so far at least been
deemed compensation. One is something called daisy chain donations, where
if you're willing to be a donor to your loved
one or your friend, but you're the wrong blood type,
you can give to somebody else who is the right
blood type, and then another donor can give to someone who,
(11:05):
again they're not the right blood type for their loved one,
but they give to somebody else, and so on and
so on until somebody gives to your loved one in
a kind of circle. So you're not getting money as
a donor, but what you're getting is a kidney that
goes to the person you care about, even if you
can't be the person who's donating directly. So that isn't
(11:26):
called compensation, but it certainly feels like something of value
going to someone you care about in return for something
that you're giving. And then the third way is through
a voucher program. So if you're willing to be a
living donor, you get a voucher that you are allowed
to give to somebody else who will then go to
the top of the line for a kidney donation should
(11:49):
they ever need it. It's an opportunity to identify somebody
who you think, at some point in their life may
need a kidney transplant, but of course maybe never will,
so it's a voucher that may never get redeemed, but
if if it's needed, it allows the person who holds
it to go to the front of the line. So
you're being given something a voucher for a kidney transplant,
(12:09):
effectively in return for your being a donor. A voucher
for a kidney transplant certainly feels like something of value,
even though it isn't money into your bank account. So
there's all these innovations that people are undertaking out of
frankly strong need, almost desperation to find enough kidneys to
transplant all these people who are waiting.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
So Sally, who we heard from earlier in this episode,
has seen firsthand what donors go through in order to
donate their kidneys, and she believes strongly that they should
be financially compensated. So could you talk a bit more
about the main reasons why some ethicists think that any
kind of compensation for organs is a concern, and what
(12:51):
bad situations they're worried about happening.
Speaker 4 (12:54):
Sure, and I would put myself into the category of
emphicists who are concerned about this. And the issues really
fall into th remain categories. One is exploitation, the second
is commodification, so turning human body parts into a commodity,
and the third is the impact on altruistic donation. So
(13:14):
taking exploitation first, there is a real concern and I
think everybody recognizes this that when people are desperate and
need money, they will do things that maybe are against
their better judgment. So that's the worry, and that helps
us bridge to the second point, which is about commodification.
We're buying and selling parts of human bodies and that
(13:35):
feels wrong. It just doesn't seem like it's an appropriate
thing to take a piece of a person's body and
sell it. So that's problem or concern number two, and
then concern number three is are sort of a hard
one to assess, but that is a concern that if
we pay people to be living donors, that there'll be
a negative impact on the deceased donor population, that people
(14:01):
just be less willing to be altruistic donors after they've died,
or even when they are alive, if there's a market,
they'll be turned off.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
Thanks so much, Jeff, great to talk with you today.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
Thank you, Lauren. Great to talk to you as well.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
We're going to take a short break. When we return,
we'll hear from Dr Mario Matchis, a behavioral economist at
Johns Hopkins University, about why we should allow financial compensation
for kidney donation, and to walk us through his proposal
for what a system of reimbursement and incentives could actually
look like. Playing God will be right back in this episode,
(14:46):
So far, we've seen how common chronic kidney diseases and
that so many Americans are on dialysis, and there's an
interesting economic perspective on whether we should allow financial incentives
for living kidney don't.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
So the debate about compensating kidney donors is often polarized,
with two sides arguing for extreme solutions or policies.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Doctor Maria Matches is a behavioral economist at Johns Hopkins
University and often works on what people call repugnant transactions.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
A repugnant transaction is a transaction where you have people
who would like to engage in an exchange, like a
buyer and a seller, but where third parties object to
the transaction, usually for ethical moral reasons, and they wish
to prohibit that transaction from taking place.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
Mario says he has seen two sides of the debate
about paying kidney donors.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
On the one hand, a total prohibitions of money exchanges,
and on the other hand, like a free market where
individuals can buy and sell organs. Now between these two
and this is not, in my view, a very productive
way to have the conversation. There are many intermediate solutions
between these two extremes. One solution is to compensate donors,
(16:15):
reinbursing them for the costs that they incur. Another type
of cost is the cost of undergoing the surgery, the
risk implied in you know, undergoing a major surgery. There
are also sort of, you know, the psychic costs of
(16:37):
the anxiety implied in undergoing a surgery that should be
taken into account when computing the total costs for a
living person to donate a kidney. And this policy proposal
is that removing these incentives to kidney donors might lead
(16:58):
to an increase in kidney donations. Now, the idea that
the act of donating a kidney should be financially neutral
for the don or, that it should not result in
net costs for the don or, that idea is not controversial.
Like ethically, ethically, there's broad support for compensating donors for costs.
(17:22):
Where there is less agreement is exactly in what types
of costs should be reinborseed and what types of costs
should not be reinborsed. For example, the idea of reinborsing
the cost associated with risk and anxiety. There is much
less agreement on that because that is more difficult to
quantify it doesn't really correspond to an out of pocket expenditure,
(17:46):
so there is a little less agreement on that. But
my sense is that a policy that would reinborse as
many costs as possible would be worthwid while policy to pursue.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
In your policy proposal, you talk about eliminating all financial
disincentives for kidney donation, but do you think it would
ever be appropriate to go a step further and create
financial incentives?
Speaker 3 (18:15):
So I personally am in favor of introducing financial incentives
that go beyond purely reinforcing donors for their expensive but
you know, different people have different views about that based
on their own, you know, personal or ethical values. I
think there's value in having a discussion and looking at
(18:38):
the evidence and understanding, you know, people's preferences, people's attitudes
about these issues. And I think that the conversation that
we should have is how do we create a system
with incentives that can lead to additional donations while mitigating
or possibly eliminating most of the of the ethical concerns
(19:00):
that people have. I think that such a system can
be designed, and that should be the goal.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
So we know that you've done public opinion research to
figure out what people think about compensation. And from that research,
would you say that Americans are okay with compensation for
organ donation.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
From my research, it would appear that a sufficient majority
of Americans, in sixty seventy percent, would be in favor
of a system that compensates donors. They would not be
in favors of a free market. They would not be
in favor of a system in which reach individuals would
be able to obtain a life saving kidney whereas four
(19:40):
individuals will not. But they would be in favor of
a system in which organ donors get compensated and an intermediary,
ideally a government agency would allocate the result in organs
in a fair way among patients in need according to
the waiting least according to medical criteria. Cash compensation would
(20:01):
be preferred things like, you know, refundable tax credits, or
contributions to a retirement account, or contributions to a college fund.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
And what do you think about dialysis? How does the
cost of dialysis play a role in how we should
think about whether we should pay a living kidney donuts.
Speaker 3 (20:20):
Dialysis is very expensive. It's covered by Medicare, but it's
a very, very expensive procedure, and it also leads to
lower quality of life because it's cumbersome on patients, and
so it's not ideal from both an economic point of
view because it's much more expensive than a transplant. All
(20:41):
things considered, financially, a kidney transplant saves money to the
health system, to Medicare. In particular, there are estimates that
indicate that every kidney transplant saves US tax payers about
one hundred and fifty thousand dollars over all. So not
(21:02):
only kidney transplants are better medically for patients, but they
are also economically better for for Medicare and for and
for tax payers. So we society should do everything we
can to increase the number of kidney transplants that can
take place. With society, we should sit down and think
(21:27):
about how to design a system that exploits the power
of incentives to obtain more donations and to perform more
transplants and save more lives by designing the system in
a way that is ethically acceptable. That debate has started
(21:47):
to happen, but more needs to be done.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Okay, well, thank you so much for joining us today.
I really enjoyed this conversation and I really appreciate your time.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
Thank you, it was a great talking with you.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
As for Sally, she's doing well. She knows she will
likely need another kidney at some point, but for now
she's advocating for a system of donation incentives, a system
that she thinks will not only help her, but thousands
of others in need of an organ.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
The one person who takes the risk, meaning an operation,
who gives a thing of value, the kidney, they're the
one person who doesn't get paid. And the entire edifice
of organ transplantation. You know, the hospital gets paid as
it should, the surgeons get paid, the nurses, the O
R rental, it's all paid. Money makes this happen. But
(22:43):
the only person who gets nothing is the person who
takes the risk and provides the organ. And you know,
why shouldn't they, especially if this will save could save
thousands of lives.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Next time on playing God And.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
I just remember laying there and watching the lights above
me as we're walking down the hallway, and the first
thing I said.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
Was do I have a uterus?
Speaker 1 (23:09):
And the nurse who was pushing me look down and
they smiled and they're like, you have a uterus?
Speaker 2 (23:15):
In twenty thirteen, the first uterus transplant to result in
a live baby being born took place in Sweden. Uterus
transplants can offer a life changing opportunity to individuals with
certain types of infertility, but when is it ethical to
transplant non life saving organs and what are the additional
ethical issues when a transplant becomes a reproductive technology. Many
(23:41):
thanks to our guests in this episode, Sally Settel and
Mario Mutchus. Playing God is a co production of Pushkin
Industries and the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. Emily
Vaughan is our lead producer. This episode was also produced
by Sophie Crane and Lucy Sullivan. Our editors are Karen
(24:02):
Chakerjee and Kate Parkinson Morgan. Theme music and mixing by
Echo Mountain Engineering support from Sarah Bruguerre and Amanda Kaiwang.
Show art by Sean Krney, fact checking by David jar
and Arthur Gompertz. Our executive producer is Justine Lang at
(24:23):
the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. Our executive producers
are Jeffrey Kahan and Anna Mastriani. Working with a Melia Hood.
Funding provided by the Greenwall Foundation. I'm Laurena Rura Hutchinson.
Come back next week for more Playing God. Generous support
(24:48):
for Playing God is provided by the Greenwall Foundation, making
bioethics integral to healthcare policy and research. Learn Moore at
Greenwall dot org
It went for a regular medical checkup, which as being
a doctor, of course, I hadn't done for ten years,
and my blood tests were not good.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
In two thousand and four, Sally Setel discovered her kidneys
were failing. It had come out of the blue, and
her doctor said she would eventually need a transplant.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
So it was a bit of a race against time
in a way. You know, how long would I feel
fine before having to go on dialysis? And during that period,
which turned out to be about eighteen months, I frantically
looked for someone to give me a body part.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
To get a new kidney. Sally had two choices, add
her name to the national wait list for kidneys from
deceased donors, or ask her living family members and friends
if they'd be willing to give her one of their own.
But Sally knew that wouldn't be easy. Not only would
she need someone to agree to donate their kidney, that
(00:59):
person would also have to be a match. So she
started searching, but she was also added to the list.
At that point, there were about sixty thousand people ahead
of her. It would take years.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
You know, Initially I kind of wanted to buy a
kidney to be honest, because I wanted to avoid what
I thought could be, you know, really complicated relationships.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Buying a kidney, however, is against the law in the
United States and nearly everywhere else in the world, but
black markets do exist.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
There are so many, so many desperate people just frankly
roaming the world looking for someone to save their life.
And obviously these are a people who have funds, you know,
can engage in this kind of thing, but you know,
it's our show.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Sally didn't want to be part of that, so all
she could do was convince someone to donate to her,
while she also waited her turn on the deceased donation list.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
So that was highly frustrate and by that time I
wasn't feeling very well.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Sally was still healthy enough to avoid dialysis, but she
was declining. She didn't have family she could ask, so
she started talking with her friends. Some seemed eager to help,
but then spoke to their families and changed their minds.
Others got cold feet. She connected with the Donut online
and it seemed promising, but eventually fell through.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
We actually even had a date, as they say, to
have the surgeries, and then he just totally disappeared.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
One day, she got an email from a friend with
the subject line serious offer. Finally this one was real.
They underwent the testing and it was a good match.
She got the transplant and it went well. Sally found
that she wasn't burdened by feelings of indebtedness to her
donor friend. She lived in decent health for a decade,
(02:55):
but then faced another blow.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
If you get a living kit, neither supposed to last
between fifteen to twenty years. Unfortunately mine didn't. But you know,
I had another friend who had worked with me at
the time I was going through this ordeal of trying
to get a kidney the first time. She was younger
and wanted to have kids first, which she said, if
(03:19):
you ever need another one, you know, I'll keep mine
warm and you can ask me.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
In twenty sixteen, Sally took her up on that offer.
She had a second kidney transplant. Today, Sally is doing well,
but she knows tens of thousands of others with renal
disease and not as fortunate. She's since become an advocate
for encouraging living organ donation, and she'd liked to see
a significant change happen for living organ donors. She thinks
(03:46):
they should be compensated.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
You know, people talk about an organ shortage, and that
is true, but I almost think about it in terms
of an altruism shortage.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
And so.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
What I believe we should do when I'm not alone,
I am the more outspoken folks I think, but I'm
certainly not alone in believing that we should reward people
who donate kidneys so that others will be motivated to
do the same. And you know there are money exchanges
for other bodily products. You know, we pay for plasma,
(04:20):
We pay for eggs and sperm and even bone marrow. Now,
and why shouldn't we offer people compensation or a reward
for giving a kidney and saving someone's life and saving
someone's mom, sister, spouse. You know, why shouldn't we do that?
Speaker 2 (04:42):
I'm Lauren Aurora Hutchinson. I'm the director of the Ideas
Lab at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. This season,
I'm going behind the scenes to discover how some of
the most significant medical innovations have impacted people's lives and
continue to whether it's redefining death or creating babies. A
(05:03):
new technology is usually waiting in the wings, along with
a whole entourage of ethical questions on today's show, is
it ever ethical to compensate someone for a kidney? And
why do we allow the sale of some body parts
and not others from Pushkin Industries and the Johns Hopkins
Berman Institute of Bioethics. This is playing god. Sally Stel
(05:33):
has been through quite a lot since the day her
doctor's discovered her kidneys were mysteriously failing and the prospect
of needing a third is very real. But she's also
the first to say she's been lucky, too successful transponts.
She knows that for many others the outcomes are not
as good, and that many are waiting for a kidney
they might never receive. Sally ended our conversation with a proposal,
(05:59):
since many people people are in dire need of a kidney,
and most healthy people can donate one kidney, we should
encourage more people to donate by compensating them, Which leaves
me wondering would it be ethically acceptable to use money
or other forms of compensation to incentifize living donors instead
of prohibiting it.
Speaker 4 (06:20):
You know, we have been debating that question for a
really very long time.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
This again is my colleague at the Berman Institute, Jeffrey Kahn.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
There's a big need and there's just not enough supply.
The data is that as many as one in seven
adults in the United States live with renal disease as
kidney disease, and if someone needs a kidney transplant, they
generally get added to a national wait list for a
kidney from somebody who has died, a deceased organ donor,
(06:51):
we call that, and so that puts patients like Sally
in a really tough situation. No one wants to stay
on dialysis, although that's really important to say. Dialysis is
the technology that allows people to wait. That technology has
gotten much better over the decade since it was first invented.
But it's time intensive, it is not pleasant, Your quality
(07:12):
of life is not great.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
So how did that policy come to be? What's the
history behind it.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
It's a kind of interesting history, actually, and it goes
back to nineteen eighty four when a law called the
National Organ Transplant Act NODA is its acronym, and that's
how it's referred to, was passed by Congress and that
law makes it illegal in the United States to buy
and sell organs, really to exchange anything of value in
(07:39):
return for an organ. And it was driven by a
guy who tried to create what we would think of
as an eBay for kidneys before eBay existed. He was
a physician who had lost his license, so he was
kind of a sketchy guy, but he found a way
to make some money by being the mental man and
brokering kidneys from people who you could then sell. That
(08:03):
was a driver, largely the driver in fact, that led
to the passage of the National Organ Transplant Act, And
so ever since nineteen eighty four we've had this law
in place which says you may not exchange anything of
value in return for a solid organ. Now, solid organs
are kidneys, livers, hearts, lungs, as opposed to bone marrow,
(08:26):
which is not a solid organ. But that's the distinction
that is in the law.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Can you talk a little bit about that distinction. I
know we already sell somebody parts like sperm, egg and plasma,
but ethically what makes them different from a solid organ
like a kidney.
Speaker 4 (08:41):
Well, it's a good question to ask. So you could say, well,
you know, we certainly regenerate sperm. There's no shortage of that,
and women have a certain limited but large number of
eggs from the time that they're born and bone marrow
and plasma regenerate. But you know, the truth is our
public policy is often inconsistent, and that's just the case here.
(09:04):
And so you know, the law was crafted in reaction
to a particular situation. Somebody was trying to buy and
sell kidneys, and so they passed the law to prevent
what they thought was an immoral, unethical, illegal market. And
so that's how the law was crafted. And I think
it wasn't as far thinking as the conversation we're having
(09:25):
would imply.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
So it's more of a legal distinction than an ethical one.
At the moment, it sounds like.
Speaker 4 (09:31):
Well, and the law, you know, we hope tracks to ethics,
but it doesn't always track perfectly to ethics, I guess,
is the way I would say it. But really interestingly,
there are innovations or ways that people are going about
getting a kidney that start to feel a lot like compensation,
but technically haven't been considered that for the purposes of
noda of the law.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
So what is considered ethically acceptable today that doesn't involve
a direct exchange of money between people.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
Right, So, there's now an online site called Matching donors
dot com where people like Sally put their information on
the site I need a kidney. Here's a little bit
about me, usually as a photograph, some background, and then
people who are willing to be donors can go to
that site and effectively shop for somebody that they want
(10:22):
to give their kidney to. What's a concern about that
is there's nothing that stops people from meeting this way
to make agreements about what they will receive in return
for being a donor. So that's one option. There are
two other ways that people can also access kidneys through
living donation that also start to feel like something being
(10:45):
exchanged that's valuable that isn't so far at least been
deemed compensation. One is something called daisy chain donations, where
if you're willing to be a donor to your loved
one or your friend, but you're the wrong blood type,
you can give to somebody else who is the right
blood type, and then another donor can give to someone who,
(11:05):
again they're not the right blood type for their loved one,
but they give to somebody else, and so on and
so on until somebody gives to your loved one in
a kind of circle. So you're not getting money as
a donor, but what you're getting is a kidney that
goes to the person you care about, even if you
can't be the person who's donating directly. So that isn't
(11:26):
called compensation, but it certainly feels like something of value
going to someone you care about in return for something
that you're giving. And then the third way is through
a voucher program. So if you're willing to be a
living donor, you get a voucher that you are allowed
to give to somebody else who will then go to
the top of the line for a kidney donation should
(11:49):
they ever need it. It's an opportunity to identify somebody
who you think, at some point in their life may
need a kidney transplant, but of course maybe never will,
so it's a voucher that may never get redeemed, but
if if it's needed, it allows the person who holds
it to go to the front of the line. So
you're being given something a voucher for a kidney transplant,
(12:09):
effectively in return for your being a donor. A voucher
for a kidney transplant certainly feels like something of value,
even though it isn't money into your bank account. So
there's all these innovations that people are undertaking out of
frankly strong need, almost desperation to find enough kidneys to
transplant all these people who are waiting.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
So Sally, who we heard from earlier in this episode,
has seen firsthand what donors go through in order to
donate their kidneys, and she believes strongly that they should
be financially compensated. So could you talk a bit more
about the main reasons why some ethicists think that any
kind of compensation for organs is a concern, and what
(12:51):
bad situations they're worried about happening.
Speaker 4 (12:54):
Sure, and I would put myself into the category of
emphicists who are concerned about this. And the issues really
fall into th remain categories. One is exploitation, the second
is commodification, so turning human body parts into a commodity,
and the third is the impact on altruistic donation. So
(13:14):
taking exploitation first, there is a real concern and I
think everybody recognizes this that when people are desperate and
need money, they will do things that maybe are against
their better judgment. So that's the worry, and that helps
us bridge to the second point, which is about commodification.
We're buying and selling parts of human bodies and that
(13:35):
feels wrong. It just doesn't seem like it's an appropriate
thing to take a piece of a person's body and
sell it. So that's problem or concern number two, and
then concern number three is are sort of a hard
one to assess, but that is a concern that if
we pay people to be living donors, that there'll be
a negative impact on the deceased donor population, that people
(14:01):
just be less willing to be altruistic donors after they've died,
or even when they are alive, if there's a market,
they'll be turned off.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
Thanks so much, Jeff, great to talk with you today.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
Thank you, Lauren. Great to talk to you as well.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
We're going to take a short break. When we return,
we'll hear from Dr Mario Matchis, a behavioral economist at
Johns Hopkins University, about why we should allow financial compensation
for kidney donation, and to walk us through his proposal
for what a system of reimbursement and incentives could actually
look like. Playing God will be right back in this episode,
(14:46):
So far, we've seen how common chronic kidney diseases and
that so many Americans are on dialysis, and there's an
interesting economic perspective on whether we should allow financial incentives
for living kidney don't.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
So the debate about compensating kidney donors is often polarized,
with two sides arguing for extreme solutions or policies.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Doctor Maria Matches is a behavioral economist at Johns Hopkins
University and often works on what people call repugnant transactions.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
A repugnant transaction is a transaction where you have people
who would like to engage in an exchange, like a
buyer and a seller, but where third parties object to
the transaction, usually for ethical moral reasons, and they wish
to prohibit that transaction from taking place.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
Mario says he has seen two sides of the debate
about paying kidney donors.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
On the one hand, a total prohibitions of money exchanges,
and on the other hand, like a free market where
individuals can buy and sell organs. Now between these two
and this is not, in my view, a very productive
way to have the conversation. There are many intermediate solutions
between these two extremes. One solution is to compensate donors,
(16:15):
reinbursing them for the costs that they incur. Another type
of cost is the cost of undergoing the surgery, the
risk implied in you know, undergoing a major surgery. There
are also sort of, you know, the psychic costs of
(16:37):
the anxiety implied in undergoing a surgery that should be
taken into account when computing the total costs for a
living person to donate a kidney. And this policy proposal
is that removing these incentives to kidney donors might lead
(16:58):
to an increase in kidney donations. Now, the idea that
the act of donating a kidney should be financially neutral
for the don or, that it should not result in
net costs for the don or, that idea is not controversial.
Like ethically, ethically, there's broad support for compensating donors for costs.
(17:22):
Where there is less agreement is exactly in what types
of costs should be reinborseed and what types of costs
should not be reinborsed. For example, the idea of reinborsing
the cost associated with risk and anxiety. There is much
less agreement on that because that is more difficult to
quantify it doesn't really correspond to an out of pocket expenditure,
(17:46):
so there is a little less agreement on that. But
my sense is that a policy that would reinborse as
many costs as possible would be worthwid while policy to pursue.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
In your policy proposal, you talk about eliminating all financial
disincentives for kidney donation, but do you think it would
ever be appropriate to go a step further and create
financial incentives?
Speaker 3 (18:15):
So I personally am in favor of introducing financial incentives
that go beyond purely reinforcing donors for their expensive but
you know, different people have different views about that based
on their own, you know, personal or ethical values. I
think there's value in having a discussion and looking at
(18:38):
the evidence and understanding, you know, people's preferences, people's attitudes
about these issues. And I think that the conversation that
we should have is how do we create a system
with incentives that can lead to additional donations while mitigating
or possibly eliminating most of the of the ethical concerns
(19:00):
that people have. I think that such a system can
be designed, and that should be the goal.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
So we know that you've done public opinion research to
figure out what people think about compensation. And from that research,
would you say that Americans are okay with compensation for
organ donation.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
From my research, it would appear that a sufficient majority
of Americans, in sixty seventy percent, would be in favor
of a system that compensates donors. They would not be
in favors of a free market. They would not be
in favor of a system in which reach individuals would
be able to obtain a life saving kidney whereas four
(19:40):
individuals will not. But they would be in favor of
a system in which organ donors get compensated and an intermediary,
ideally a government agency would allocate the result in organs
in a fair way among patients in need according to
the waiting least according to medical criteria. Cash compensation would
(20:01):
be preferred things like, you know, refundable tax credits, or
contributions to a retirement account, or contributions to a college fund.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
And what do you think about dialysis? How does the
cost of dialysis play a role in how we should
think about whether we should pay a living kidney donuts.
Speaker 3 (20:20):
Dialysis is very expensive. It's covered by Medicare, but it's
a very, very expensive procedure, and it also leads to
lower quality of life because it's cumbersome on patients, and
so it's not ideal from both an economic point of
view because it's much more expensive than a transplant. All
(20:41):
things considered, financially, a kidney transplant saves money to the
health system, to Medicare. In particular, there are estimates that
indicate that every kidney transplant saves US tax payers about
one hundred and fifty thousand dollars over all. So not
(21:02):
only kidney transplants are better medically for patients, but they
are also economically better for for Medicare and for and
for tax payers. So we society should do everything we
can to increase the number of kidney transplants that can
take place. With society, we should sit down and think
(21:27):
about how to design a system that exploits the power
of incentives to obtain more donations and to perform more
transplants and save more lives by designing the system in
a way that is ethically acceptable. That debate has started
(21:47):
to happen, but more needs to be done.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Okay, well, thank you so much for joining us today.
I really enjoyed this conversation and I really appreciate your time.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
Thank you, it was a great talking with you.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
As for Sally, she's doing well. She knows she will
likely need another kidney at some point, but for now
she's advocating for a system of donation incentives, a system
that she thinks will not only help her, but thousands
of others in need of an organ.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
The one person who takes the risk, meaning an operation,
who gives a thing of value, the kidney, they're the
one person who doesn't get paid. And the entire edifice
of organ transplantation. You know, the hospital gets paid as
it should, the surgeons get paid, the nurses, the O
R rental, it's all paid. Money makes this happen. But
(22:43):
the only person who gets nothing is the person who
takes the risk and provides the organ. And you know,
why shouldn't they, especially if this will save could save
thousands of lives.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Next time on playing God And.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
I just remember laying there and watching the lights above
me as we're walking down the hallway, and the first
thing I said.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
Was do I have a uterus?
Speaker 1 (23:09):
And the nurse who was pushing me look down and
they smiled and they're like, you have a uterus?
Speaker 2 (23:15):
In twenty thirteen, the first uterus transplant to result in
a live baby being born took place in Sweden. Uterus
transplants can offer a life changing opportunity to individuals with
certain types of infertility, but when is it ethical to
transplant non life saving organs and what are the additional
ethical issues when a transplant becomes a reproductive technology. Many
(23:41):
thanks to our guests in this episode, Sally Settel and
Mario Mutchus. Playing God is a co production of Pushkin
Industries and the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. Emily
Vaughan is our lead producer. This episode was also produced
by Sophie Crane and Lucy Sullivan. Our editors are Karen
(24:02):
Chakerjee and Kate Parkinson Morgan. Theme music and mixing by
Echo Mountain Engineering support from Sarah Bruguerre and Amanda Kaiwang.
Show art by Sean Krney, fact checking by David jar
and Arthur Gompertz. Our executive producer is Justine Lang at
(24:23):
the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. Our executive producers
are Jeffrey Kahan and Anna Mastriani. Working with a Melia Hood.
Funding provided by the Greenwall Foundation. I'm Laurena Rura Hutchinson.
Come back next week for more Playing God. Generous support
(24:48):
for Playing God is provided by the Greenwall Foundation, making
bioethics integral to healthcare policy and research. Learn Moore at
Greenwall dot org
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!