Letters of Response by

Dorothy H. Hayes,
Charles B. Fruit, and
Michelle Goodwin
Syarifa Suraiya Rahmani
(E1D020209)
Yusfie Mardhini Auladia
(E1D020220)
To the Editor:
Re “Death’s Waiting List,” by Sally Satel (Op-Ed, May 15):
As a kidney donor, I consider cash for organs an obscene proposal. I
donated a kidney to a loved one in 2002 and would do it again in a
heartbeat. It was a gift to me to offer new life.
But cash for body parts? This option has the potential to promote
donor trafficking, and to germinate guilt on a grand scale.
Even in life-and-death situations, some may not be able to risk the
pain and their own health for a loved one in need of an organ trans-
plant, no matter how much they love.
But for tax breaks, guaranteed health insurance, college scholar-
ships, and deposits in retirement accounts, as Dr. Satel suggests?
Europe’s “presumed consent” is the humane answer and decades
overdue.
DOROTHY H. HAYES
Stamford, Conn., May 16, 2006Here’s
To the Editor:
Sally Satel and I were both lucky enough to have found donors for kidney transplants that saved
our lives. But I disagree with her endorse-ment of a market-based incentive strategy that would pay
organ donors or their family members. That would set a dangerous precedent.
In 2005, a national survey found that 10.8 percent of those polled would be less likely to grant
consent for the organs of a deceased fam-ily member to be used for transplant if they were offered
payment; 68 percent said they would be neither more nor less likely to grant consent.
Thus, there is little data to show that financial incentives would increase donation rates. More
likely, “paying for organs” would lead people to view organs as commodities.
The National Kidney Foundation has long maintained that financial incentives for donation would
not allow the United States to maintain its values as a society, and that a voluntary system of organ
donation, free of commercialization, is the only ethical way transplantation can be practiced in the
United States.
The foundation is working to attack the organ shortage through improvement in organ-donation
education for families and the establish-ment of standards to ensure the health and safety of living
donors. A wholesale sellout to the law of supply and demand is not the answer.
CHARLES B. FRUIT
Atlanta, May 17, 2006
To the Editor:
Sally Satel offers a provocative solution to the American organ trans-
plant system failure: try incentives. She’s right.
African-Americans are disproportionately affected by the organ
shortage. They represent 40 percent of people on the kidney transplant
waiting list, have the longest waits, and experience the highest death
rates on lists.
For years, commentators have suggested that African Americans
would suffer most under a system with incentives. Their arguments
verge on the paternalistic and polemical, and their rationales are out-
moded and incendiary.
Such thinking ignores the fact that blacks might benefit from the
introduction of incentives into the current transplantation system, because
African Americans need kidneys more than any other group.
The consequences of ignoring the possible advantages of cadaveric
sales for curing organ deficits and thereby enhancing the health oppor-
tunities for all Americans, especially black Americans, are extreme.
MICHELE GOODWIN
Chicago, May 15, 2006
 TOPICS FOR CRITICAL THINKING AND
WRITING
• Hayes says in her second paragraph, “I consider cash for organs an obscene proposal.”
Do you agree? Why, or why not?
Answer : Yes, I agree with that statement. Because if I was in that position I'll do the
same and of course for someone we love we can do everything even though we have to
sacrifice our organ.
• Fruit offers statistics concerning financial rewards to the families of the deceased, but he
does not address the points Satel raises in paragraph 11 — outright payments to the
donor, or to a charity of the donor’s choice, or to the donor’s estate. Would any of these
plans influence you to become a donor after your death? Why, or why not?
Answer : No, it's none sense for me, cause i don't sacrifice my organ for money.
• Goodwin in her third paragraph mentions “paternalistic” arguments, but
she doesn’t describe them. What do you suppose a paternalistic argument would be?
Answer : Paternalistic argument is an argument of limiting the freedom of a person or
group for their own good.
Thank you