Search

Repugnance and its consequences in market transactions are discussed. The selling of tissue, lending money for interest, slavery, gambling, adoption and other examples of markets wherein repugnance has been established as a constraint on the market are presented.

The supply and demand for organ transplants in the United States is discussed. Monetary incentive is proposed as a means of increasing live donations. The sale of organs is criticized as being immoral since it involves the commodification of body parts.

Shortages in transplantable organs limit the ability of patients to benefit from organ transplantation. The current organ donation system, as well as policies to increase donation rates and to enlarge the pool of potential donors, is discussed.

It is widely believed that if only we allowed a market in organs, supply would increase and shortages would disappear. However, there is considerable evidence that we have not wrung all the supply we can out of the donative system. This essay argues that shortages in organs are due to inadequate procurement effort rather than the inefficiency of appeals to donor altruism. The insufficiency of effort is ascribed to (1) ignorance of the regulatory authorities and the participants with respect to the nature of the production system in which they are engaged, (2) problems inherent in a production system that relies on exhorting donors, and (3) the well-known limitations of the nonprofit organizations that are the key actors in this production system.

A study, correcting the flaw that exists in a research work done by Kolnsberg, which concludes that sale of human organs should be banned, when living donor organs do not get substantial amount of money, is presented. It ignores the social welfare gains as well as the loss of lives incase a ban is introduced.