• Lisa Paolillo (LAW’94)

    Lisa Paolillo (LAW’94) Profile

    Lisa Paolillo (LAW’94) is the chief legal officer of New England Donor Services. She can be reached at lpaolillo@neds.org.

  • Alexandra Glazier (LAW’96, SPH’97)

    Alexandra Glazier (LAW’96, SPH’97) Profile

    Alexandra Glazier (LAW’96, SPH’97), is the president and CEO of New England Donor Services and an assistant professor at Brown University’s School of Public Health. She can be reached at aglazier@neds.org.

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 4 comments on POV: Organ Donation System Is Thriving, Not Broken—but There Is Room for Improvement

  1. Blaming recent decreases in organ donor registration on researchers exposing flaws within OPOs, rather than the flaws themselves, is a severe deflection of responsibility. In rebutting O’Malley’s claim of racial inequity made using CMS data, Paolillo and Glazier cite a study written with funding from multiple OPOs. Not hard to see the conflict of interest…

  2. Many people don’t realize that once a donor is declared brain-dead, no anesthesia is used during organ retrieval. When told of this, it can deter potential donors.

    Stories of individuals who were declared dead but later showed signs of life—such as one reported incident ( https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2024/10/16/nx-s1-5113976/organ-transplantion-mistake-brain-dead-surgery-still-alive )—can understandably alarm anyone on the fence about donating. While such cases are rare, they underscore the need for transparency and reassurance in the organ donation process.

    Addressing these barriers is crucial. Some have suggested a form of mechanical anesthesia—like severing the spinal cord during organ retrieval—to allay concerns about possible pain, even though the donor is medically and legally considered deceased.

    Ultimately, efforts to increase organ donation should include practical strategies that openly acknowledge and address donors’ legitimate concerns. Doing so can help more people feel at ease with the decision to become organ donors.

  3. I will point out that NPR was very inaccurate in its coverage. This potential donor you mention was NEVER declared brain dead. He was on a donor-after-cardiac-death pathway and when it was evident he had more neuro than expected, the case was cancelled. It is very disturbing when the media spreads fear and misinformation devoid of facts.

  4. Any conversation about organ transplantation that leaves out the possibility of creating, or at least *allowing* for a legal, above-board market to buy and sell organs is incomplete. As per the source linked below, the waiting list for a kidney is currently 92,000 people along, with most recipients waiting years to receive an organ, and many dying while on the list. All this somehow happens when our society has *double* the collective kidneys we would need to keep everyone healthy– and yet somehow, we manage not to. Allowing for the provision of modest compensation at market rates (or at a set rate in the low tens-of-thousands of dollars) would without a doubt greatly increase the number of kidneys donated, reducing death nationwide.

    The idea seems morally repulsive, sure, but advocating that a practice be banned solely because *you* as an individual find it morally repulsive is a weak argument that has been made many times in the past and ought not to be repeated now. Someone who neither needs to buy a kidney to survive nor needs to sell a kidney to make ends meet saying “I do not consent to your kidney trade,” is a social equivalence to saying “I do not consent to *your* gay marriage.” Allowing for gay marriage is not the state mandating that *you* personally be gay; allowing for the sale of organs is not mandating that you buy, or sell an organ.

    Some may protest that the availability of organs as a commodity would do nothing to stop the poor from dying– but currently *everyone* dies; is maximizing death tolls to placate the moral sensibilities of those not at risk of dying an acceptable practice? By ignoring the possibility of market-based change to our organ transplant system, this article implicitly asserts that it is. (There is also the possibility of providing a government rate to compensate organ donors for poorer recipients with taxpayer money, but *any* system allowing for compensation for donation would be better than what we currently have.)

    I would sell a kidney in a heartbeat, if even a very low price were offered. Many young people from disadvantaged backgrounds would too. Currently, though, not only would I see no compensation to do such a thing, I would likely have to *pay*, in lost schooling, wages, and medical bills. And so I, and many young people like me without significant means would help share the gift of life with others– and yet, they don’t.

    This whole conversation could be made much easier and more concrete if we simply allowed the free market to help do some of the heavy lifting. It is not the place of the median voter, who is relatively healthy and middle-class, to withhold their support for a policy that could help those who are neither of those things simply because it makes them uncomfortable.

    https://www.kidneyfund.org/kidney-donation-and-transplant/transplant-waiting-list

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *