I got to be on the news last night. The segment was about living donors and if we should be paid or compensated in some other form. I posted the link in the news section, but it really is an interesting idea. How do you guys feel about it?
One of the surgeons at the U of M is a big advocate and champion for it.  His ideas are about life insurance for the donor, or perhaps health care for life.

Thoughts?

Here's the link again in case you want to see. I think they did a nice job of dealing with the subject.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/12/07/good-question-should-organ-donors-be-paid/

Thanks for the link.  Interesting article and interview.  You were great in the interview!
This is such an emotionally charged topic with so many ethical ramifications.  I wonder if there is a way to legitimize this process without taking advantage of the poorest members of society.  I fear there would be abuse of the system, with poor people pressured into donation just for the money.
On the other hand, it would be wonderful to see everyone who is a candidate for transplant receive a kidney.   

I totally agree.
Sperm donors are compensated (and goodness...if that doesn't invite all sorts of people...)
Surrogates are compensated
certain types of blood donation are compensated
now bone marrow is compensated

I truly don't know how I feel about it. I would feel okay with the life insurance or health insurance for sure, but outright compensation makes me feel strange. But it would probably get many of the people who are on the fence about if they should donate or not to NOT be on the fence, but then the whole motivation changes. It's so interesting.
I wonder what the countries that do compensate have to deal with. Are their systems flooded with people trying to donate who don't pass screening? Who would compensate donors?
It's a big one!

 a good private health insurance (accepted EVERYWHERE) would be sufficient compensation.

Quote from: PhilHoover on January 01, 2012, 08:18:01 AM
a good private health insurance (accepted EVERYWHERE) would be sufficient compensation.

I have not been a donor but I would like to chime in . . . . sometimes the problem with compensation is that suddenly a priceless gift will now be viewed by in terms of its monetary compensation. Surrogates, sperm donors--I am taking from the list above--they are all compensated, and although their actions might indeed be helping others, their actions now have a definitive price.  Carrying a baby for another childless couple is very nice, and it is worth $40,000.  Donating sperm is worth $xxx, etc.

How will altruistic donors feel if a kidney donation, which is really priceless, is viewed by most people as a property transfer worth $10,000?

Just from reading these boards, it sounds as though instead of focusing on outright fixed compensation, there could be a better job done of making sure donors do not suffer economic losses resulting from their donation and recovery.  I understand that healthcare costs are paid for, but there are other costs, such as loss of income, spouse time off, etc. that can take an economic toll.  To me a reimbursement for economic losses is not the same as "compensation."

As someone who traveled halfway across country, I want to see full payment of travel expenses for the donor and a companion; reimbursement for lost wages if disability didn't cover the trip; mandatory FMLA; health care coverage for any complications, and annual physicals with all tests for life; a guarantee that absence of a kidney will not be used as a basis to deny life insurance.

Outright payment?  No.

However, I wonder if it makes sense to add the donor to insurance company, at no cost to the donor.  The insurance company is going to chop roughly $80,000 per year off expenses (taking out the cost of the anti-rejection meds), so why not give the donor some insurance?  With most donors being extremely healthy, the "risk" level to the insurance company is lower than normal, and the donor gets a safety net in case something drastic happen. 

I would have been quite happy to receive money for my kidney, but I was happy to save my buddies life for free.  Although, I do agree that by him receiving a new kidney, it saved his health insurance tons of money.

I'm with Audry,

I think most of us who have donated would probably agree that we were not looking for anything other than to make a difference in someone's life but;  I don't think any of us would think it is right that an organ donor should come out of this process 1) at an economic loss or deficit 2) Having to pay out of their own pocket or own insurance, any related expenses  3) That we don't have adequate and long-term medical follow-up and after-care  4)  that someday down the road, we as donors may present with collateral issues, relative to our donation, that will ultimately need to be addressed medically and billed to our own insurance and where we most probably will have related out-of-pocket deductibles and such.

After my surgery, my wife was my primary care-giver and missed enough work that equated to a couple of thousand dollars in lost pay for unpaid time off.  Minnesota has statutory provision for a tax credit of up to $10,000.00 to cover such costs, but apparently it only applies directly to the donor, not your wife/husband - what sense does this make.   

Speaking with individuals who may be considering living donation, it's obvious that one of their main concerns (other than long-term impact to their health post-op) is economics.  Not what they stand to gain, but what do they stand to lose.  That's not right.

Listen, our United States Congressman and Senators receive cadillac health care for life for serving a single-term in congress - is there a disparity there?  :-\

Ultimately, I'm not necessarily for outright payment for organs as I see too many collateral issues that would arise, but I am for making it easier and more assuring for potential donors to make the decision by offering life-time health care with no deductibles, co-pays or RX costs, that is accepted everywhere/anywhere the patient/donor wants to go and it should be FAMILY coverage also as their decision and any impact affects both the donor and their immediate family.

Scott   8)

I totally agree with what everyone say. Making a donation is a gift and as a gift do you need to get paid for it? Especially if you are a willing participant. We all have different views about the situation. But in the long run, the real question is, are you willing to donate out of the goodness of your heart or are you in it just for the money? We all have our own reasons on how we answer that question, but I think whatever answer we give is wrong, if in the end you can still help someone live a life. ;)