The medical field utilizes a variety of techniques to save lives everyday. One way is to perform an organ transplant by replacing a patient’s failing organ with a working one. The problem with this is that working organs are very hard to come by, and when they do, it is not guaranteed that the organ can be transplanted. One way to obtain a transplantable organ is through donation. Organs can be donated by both living and deceased people, but very little people donate that it makes the waiting list long. One debate that is currently going on in the medical field is whether or not an opt-out system (A system where all citizens would be registered organ donors, and would have to manually opt out) should be implemented over our current opt-in system. However, there are arguments against this, stating that it would be easier to focus on smaller problems, because one giant system alone will not increase donation numbers. The best approach to increasing the number of organ donors is to improve the process by compensating donors, providing adequate support, and enact laws which strengthen the organ donation centers.

One way to increase the number of organ donors is to properly compensate donors. A big reason why people may feel hesitant to donate is because many fear that they have neither the time or the money to donate. Organ donation is not simply an appointment you make where you show up, give them a kidney, and be on your way. It is a process that takes up to three months to recover from (Thiessen C, Jaji Z, Joyce M, et al, 2017) Many are hesitant because they fear that they will be bedridden for a few month, and as a result, fear being unable to support themselves and their families. Some fear they will not be able to pay rent or even keep their job if they donate due to the healing process. Hospitals do not compensate nearly enough for most donors to live comfortably.

A fix to this problem would be to compensate fully for a person’s cost of living during their recovery, and also work with employers to give donors rights to their job. Since donation is a very rare event to begin with, the government would not suffer financing these people’s lives for a short amount of time.The government could receive the funds for donors by accepting monetary donation, and by cutting into the healthcare sector and setting aside more money for donors in these scenarios. Financial support could also be offered to help support funeral costs of deceased donors, to encourage more families to allow their loved one’s organs to be donated. If this problem were to be fixed, people might feel eager or better about donating in general. This could lead to more donations.

Another way to increase the number of organ donors is to provide adequate support for donors. One conflict that arises is that of a deceased’s wishes vs what their family wants. While someone can register themselves as a donor, it is ultimately up to their family to decide once they are deceased. As a result, many families choose not to have them donate, mostly due to what they do not know, or what they think will happen. Others feel obligated to either donate or have the deceased donated just because they believe it is moral. The problem here is that if organ donation has a reputation for guilt-tripping, less people will want to register.

The way to fix the inadequate support is to simply expand organ transplant centers, both by increasing the number of workers, and the number of educational resources. Educating the hesitant can lead to less of these ‘uncertain’ moments where they either feel obligated to make a decision that they do not have the information to make. There are a few ways to provide education, but one simple one would be to hire professionals to teach people the pros and cons of donating, the facts … etc. They could provide pamphlets that answer simple questions, and could even offer classes and a hotline for potential donors. By investing more money into professionals who can properly teach everything about organ donation, the support for donors would increase, and as a result, more would be informed enough to make the best decision for them.

By improving the process, more people may feel comfortable with either donating or not. Even in cases where donors decide to not donate, resources must be made available in order to decrease negative feelings of guilt. One study showed that most donors would prefer an alibi to break news to whoever needed a donation that they were not getting what they needed. While only a small sample of people, it still proves that many people can feel guilty by denying their receiver. These are the emotions that need to be eliminated if people are going to feel completely comfortable with donating.

The last way to increase the number of organ donations is to enact laws which strengthen organ donation centers. A problem found by a UK task force in 2008 found that one problem with organ transplantation is that the centers do not have a very tight network (Rudge C, Buggins E, 2012) Because Organ donation is a rare occurrence, and many cannot donate even if they are registered, organ donation centers are rather small (Not much is put into them) This means that these centers aren’t running as efficiently as they could be. Organs have to be properly retrieved within a certain time frame to still be usable. If the centers don’t work efficiently and cooperatively, the already small number of organs to use decreases. This applies to the U.S. as well since both countries have an opt in system, and neither have, or had the most money, or resources going into their centers. It only makes sense that if it works in the UK, it can work in the U.S. (

The way to fix this was based on the Task Force’s findings. They recommended that changes be made based on establishing official organizations that specialize in organ donation, and resolving ethical and legal issues. By doing this, the UK saw a 25% increase in deceased organ donors over three years. This suggests that if the U.S. improves its infrastructure in organ donation centers the number of donations will increase.

While the opt-out system does have its supporters, it is just not logical to enact this system over an opt-in one (By itself). While, yes, countries with this system do have a higher correlation of donations, there are a misconceptions. The best known example of a country with a opt-out system is Spain. Unsurprisingly, Spain has the highest rate of donations and donors. However, what some do not understand is that the numbers that increased were not just because of their switch to this system, Spain also improved their donation network and made access to donation easier around the same time. Over a decade, numbers started to rise, which means that the opt-out system alone is not enough to increase donation numbers.

While an opt-out system does have its benefits, it does not outweigh the benefits of improving the current system. Evidence has shown that by compensating donors, decreasing uneasiness about donating, and strengthening donation centers, donation numbers will increase. Despite the debate about which will do more, it is still important to remember that both want improvement. The issue at hand is increasing donor numbers, and more specifically, improving how to improve the number of usable organs. Neither side is wrong, and a compromise can certainly be met to synergize with each other. It is important that everyone works together in order to solve an issue as big, as timely, and as costly as organ donation is.

References Page

Henderson, M. L., & Gross, J. A. (2017). Living Organ Donation and Informed Consent in the United States: Strategies to Improve the Process. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 45(1), 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110517703101

Oh, T. (2015, January). Organ donation: how to increase the donor pool. Anaesthesia & Intensive Care, pp. 12–13.

Organ Donation and Transplantation Statistics. (2014, August 12). Retrieved October 31, 2017, from https://www.kidney.org/news/newsroom/factsheets/Organ-Donation-and-Transplantation-Stats

Rudge, C. J., & Buggins, E. (2012). How to Increase Organ Donation: Does Opting Out Have a Role? Transplantation, 93(2), 141–144. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0b013e31823a2411

Thiessen, C., Jaji, Z., Joyce, M., Zimbrean, P., Reese, P., Gordon, E. J., & Kulkarni, S. (2017). Opting out: a single-centre pilot study assessing the reasons for and the psychosocial impact of withdrawing from living kidney donor evaluation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 43(11), 756–761. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103512

Wilkinson, K., & Peet, D. (2014). Organ donation. InnovAiT, 7(2), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1755738013506565