Controversy

Moral Controversy

Argument: Will the donor be tempted to harm himself/herself for the sake of financial reward?

• Yes: Poor donors donate for financial reward but are in poor physical / nutritional condition.

• No: One kidney is sufficient to cope with the needed body function; the reward is merely a small compensation.

Ethical Controversies

Argument: Will the legalisation of organ trading create a market for the sale of organs and turn organs into commodities?

• No: A nominal amount to compensate for the expenses incurred by the donation, not a sale, not a reward.

• Yes: In the Iranian case from the Source, the buyer and seller meet and negotiate and the amount is attractive to the poor and is a reward.

Social equity

Argument: Will the poor be tempted to sell their organs so that access to treatment will be monopolised by the rich?

• Yes: Many donors come from poor countries or poor classes and are forced to sell their organs because they are poor, whereas only the rich can afford to pay (e.g. the money received by those from Iran is equivalent to one year of their income).

• No: In the case of Singapore, only a small amount of compensation is involved, and those who cannot afford to pay are assisted by social welfare agencies. The Iranian government also intervenes to subsidise patients who cannot afford to pay for organs.

Moral values

Arguments: Will it undermine the noble act of organ donation which is selfless and out of love?

• No: Donors are only paid a small fee to cover the necessary expenses, it is not a sale, the proceeds do not cover the loss, and donation is still a noble and sacrificial act for others.

• Yes: Most donations do not involve compensation, and the financial gain and negotiation process can give the impression of organ trading, which raises doubts about the motives of the donor and is perceived as selfish. It significantly degrades the social image of the act of donation.