In the Article "Yes, Let's Pay for Organs", Time (May 17, 1999) the author, Charles Krauthammer, questions if it is right for humans to pay for organs from either live or dead people. Pennsylvania wants to pay 300 dollars toward funeral expenses for the donor's family. They are hoping that paying people will bring in more organs. Krauthammer argues that while $300 is a generous offer, it can not be the same compensation for different social classes. Then he states that prices will start being put on the organs, and that the poor will not be able to afford them, even though they are trying to help everyone. Krauthammer says that they will most likely start by paying for deceased people's organs, and then paying for living people's body parts. The Human Body will turn into a commodity. It will be worth a lot more than it was in previous history. Then he goes on to say that poor people could benefit from being paid for organs, but that it is not right. Humans are not supposed to sell their body to make money. That includes prostitution (selling it for someone else's pleasure), and selling body parts (to help someone else live). He says that selling live parts will separate the rich from the poor even more than it is now. That the poor people will sell parts to put food on the table, and that rich people will be able to buy them like nothing. Meanwhile, the poor people keep selling and selling, and they can't afford when they do need a transplant. He goes on to question why not more money? Why pay the funeral home directly, instead of giving cash to the relatives? He thinks that it is wrong to pay living people for their organs, but that there should be a line put down somewhere. He thinks that line should be between paying for dead organs, and paying for live organs.
I agree with Krauthammer's article. I think that families should get "compensation" money for dead relatives, but it should be determined partly on their social class. I can see why it would be a...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document