Following a grim injury I picked up yesterday while playing, I happened to visit by the doctor today in the morning.
While I was sitting at the lobby, I noticed a young girl across the hall, seated in what seemed like the most comfortable chair man could have ever built! It was big, blue and cushioned from head to toe! In the stark contrast to my back’s awful twinge, the comfort which the chair apparently had on offer was too tempting for me to ignore!
Instantly, I managed to get up, and I made my move towards the child. She looked really pretty in the yellow dress with what seemed like a flower in her hand. From the distance I saw a lady walk up to her and gently caress her hair. Instincts told me she was the child’s mother.
As I inched closer, my make-believe fantasy of the chair being the most comfortable of its kind came shattering down. For one, it was a wheel chair with 8 letters painted in block letters which went like “Dialysis” and the apparent flower in her hand was a channel made to her vein for the purpose. And then a certain realization hit me hard. That child had failed kidneys and could not get a transplant.
A couple of weeks back, the excellent journey of Debating Matters 2009-2010 finally ended. The International final was brilliant and the entire festival of the Battle of Ideas was an experience of a lifetime!
As we all know, the two teams in the International Final debated on the introduction of financial incentives to help increase organ availability in the market. The team against the motion emerged victorious and hence it was obvious that people are still skeptical of the introduction of such measures. I had taken this debate like any other but today’s incident made it all the more particular for me to be vocal about how such skepticism is in fact, blatantly unfair.
The face of the child still floats in front of me. At the finals, Patrice mentioned how everyone was meant to live and die one day… and to be honest; I was quite impressed with that line of thought. But again, now that I think of it I’d rather have that child survive and live a life beyond the painful boundaries of dialysis for a few years before the inevitable eventuality runs its course.
I decided to write this only because I feel concerned and I guess its time we started speaking about it more often until a concrete decision is taken by someone with authority, wisdom and ability.
This emotional card has always been played against the skeptics by hard lined believers of financial incentives, but after today, its more than a card to be played in a debate to impress the audiences. I quote myself from my speech, “So far, the question has always been, how ethical it is for someone to donate his organ for a brief amount of cash? My question is, how ethical is it to NOT let him donate his organ, and in the process, let on person die every hour?”
2 weeks have rolled since that day. 14 days. 336 hours. And while we witnessed some more debates over the topic, 336 died. The statistics are blunt and heavy. People are dying!
One point Adam and Patrice were very particularly articulate about, was how financial incentives shall lead to exploitation of the poor. I have read this argument in almost every document / article that voices its concern against incentives and every time I couldn’t help but admire the narrowness of thought here.
Exploitation of the poor? If all we develop is a regularized market where people are “rewarded” for their act of human kindness (the act of donating his/her organ) by the government which forms the supervising and channelizing body, this argument of the exploitation of the poor exposes itself to severe criticism.
Even if we do consider poverty to be a coercive force influencing organ donation, there is nothing immoral in rewarding someone who donates his organ and benefits with the reward. And while he donates his organ, he saves a life. Is there something more moral than saving one’s life?
Today’s laws mock the very right to life. A donor shall be prevented from entering into an agreement which harms him, but he should also be prohibited from donating his organ for financial incentives; an agreement which benefits him! An individual with a family donor who donates altruistically has the right to life, but that child does not?
If altruism were that great a device, that small child wouldn’t have been sitting on the mammoth chair preparing for another grueling session of dialysis. The fact that there is one person dying every hour, somewhere in the world on account of organ shortage goes to show how altruism is non-effective unless we add the sugary coating of an “incentive” over it.
Financial incentives’ introduction can never undermine the inspiration that altruistic donors are. If financial incentives were to demoralize individuals from practicing altruism, then philanthropy is probably dead.
External Links :
Debating Matters International Final
Debating Matters India
Battle of Ideas
Profiles :
(DM UK Team)
Adam Rawcliffe
Patrice Ellis
(DM India Team)
Abhisek Ghosh
Devvart Poddar
