There are many ways to reward organ providers and their survivors.
One proposed method would give those who volunteer to be organ
providers preferential status if they themselves should need organs.
Exceptions could be made for those (such as minors) who are incapable
of making informed decisions. Individuals would be "purchasing
insurance" that could extend their lives by many years, yet the only
"cost" of this "insurance" is the slight chance that one's organs may
be removed following death. Providing tangible benefits to this
altruistic act should significantly increase the supply of available
organs.
Other ways of rewarding organ providers include providing estate tax credits to the deceased's survivors, or requiring organ recipients to pay the deceased's funeral expenses. More discussion along these lines, as well as an economic analysis of how the current system of rationing wastes lives through inefficiency, can be found in this 1997 Cato Journal article. In a Washington Times column Pete du Pont explained why there should be a market in human organs.
The UNOS website links to a white paper that does a good job of presenting the arguments for and against compensating organ providers. However, the paper concludes by stating, "Ultimately, only if and when financial incentives for organ donation are widely accepted as different from the purchasing of organs, can this alternative be proposed as preferable to the current system of altruistic organ donation." First of all, any reasonable person can see that "financial incentives for organ donation" and "purchasing of organs" are one and the same, so the public will never view them as different from one another. Second, the statement implies that altruism and financial incentives cannot coexist; in fact, most altruism involves some type of financial incentive (e.g., tax deductions). Finally, the statement further implies that "purchasing organs" is inherently wrong. The true wrong is for governments to prevent individuals from offering substantial compensation to destitute families in exchange for life-giving organs that would otherwise be buried, thereby sentencing the former to death or years of suffering and the latter to a continuing life of poverty.
Until the system becomes more fair, individuals can opt out by becoming Organ Keepers. If enough individuals become Organ Keepers, this will force lawmakers and policymakers to develop a system that is fair to organ providers and their families.
