An "opting in" paradigm for kidney transplantation

American Journal of Bioethics 4 (4):4 – 14 (2004)

Almost 60,000 people in the United States with end stage renal disease are waiting for a kidney transplant. Because of the scarcity of organs from deceased donors live kidney donors have become a critical source of organs; in 2001, for the first time in recent decades, the number of live kidney donors exceeded the number of deceased donors. The paradigm used to justify putting live kidney donors at risk includes the low risk to the donor, the favorable risk-benefit ratio, the psychological benefits to the donor, altruism, and autonomy coupled with informed consent; because each of these arguments is flawed we need to lessen our dependence on live kidney donors and increase the number of organs retrieved from deceased donors. An "opting in" paradigm would reward people who agree to donate their kidneys after they die with allocation preference should they need a kidney while they are alive. An "opting in" program should increase the number of kidneys available for transplantation and eliminate the morally troubling problem of "organ takers" who would accept a kidney if they needed one but have made no provision to be an organ donor themselves. People who "opt in" would preferentially get an organ should they need one at the minimal cost of donating their kidneys when they have no use for them; it is a form of organ insurance a rational person should find extremely attractive. An "opting in" paradigm would simulate the reciprocal altruism observed in nature that sociobiologists believe enhances group survival. Although the allocation of organs based on factors other than need might be morally troubling, an "opting in" paradigm compares favorably with other methods of obtaining more organs and accepting the status quo of extreme organ scarcity. Although an "opting in" policy would be based on enlightened self-interest, by demonstrating the utilitarian value of mutual assistance, it would promote the attitude that self-interest sometimes requires the perception that we are all part of a common humanity.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/15265160490518557
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 46,206
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Possibility of Altruism.Thomas Nagel - 1970 - Oxford Clarendon Press.
The Possibility of Altruism.John Benson - 1970 - Philosophical Quarterly 22 (86):82-83.
The Moral Animal.Richard D. Wright - 1994 - Pantheon Books.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Mandatory Autopsies and Organ Conscription.David Hershenov - 2009 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19 (4):367-391.
Why We Must Leave Our Organs to Others.D. Micah Hester - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (4):W23-W28.
Bonus Allocation Points for Those Willing to Donate Organs.Robert M. Veatch - 2004 - American Journal of Bioethics 4 (4):1 – 3.
Is Consent of the Donor Enough to Justify the Removal of Living Organs?Govert den Hartogh - 2013 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 22 (1):45-54.

View all 29 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
52 ( #169,531 of 2,285,631 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #577,262 of 2,285,631 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature