The recent exposure of a Black Market for Organs, in Northern New Jersey and New York leading to the first prosecution for organ trafficking in the United States, and the current health care debate raises questions about fairness in allocation of scarce resources. It also raises issues germane to our current health care debate. In this diary I will compare and contrast the policies of two countries, Iran and Israel, and the policy approaches they have developed in response to too few organs and too many people who need organs.
Join me below the fold
The waiting list in Israel for a kidney transplant in Israel is about 5 years. Eytan MorIn Iran there is no waiting list.
Kidney transplantation for those suffering from end stage renal disease offers both improved quality of life and lower health care costs. The sooner the transplant is effected after diagnosis, the better the outcome
Why the difference in waiting times and transplants? Both countries experience the same rate of kidney disease (for the sake of discussion).
In Israel, organ donation rates are very low because of cultural and religious beliefs that discourage posthumous donation.
As a result, the Health Insurers in Israel began paying for transplants abroad, with Israeli's traveling to Turkey, South Africa, and Asia.
Iran chose a different path, in 1988 they became one of the first Nations to permit and regulate payment and other incentives for living donor transplants.
Concerns that this policy would reduce altruistic organ donors have not been validated.
The risk of legalizing paid donors are rife, coercion, exploitation, and crime. The risks of not legalizing and regulating this practice are corruption are about the same.
Who has the better approach?