Why the market for kidney organs is not a free market in the US

 

 

Consider the reasons why the market for kidney organs is not a free market in the US, specifically discuss equity concerns. Expand on your discussion of the market from Part I, using what you have learned about government interventions/price controls.

Discuss the current government intervention in the Kidney Market in the U.S. Describe this market – comparing the free market and to the government intervention in one graph – using supply and demand; reference and discuss your graph in your paper. Explain the current government intervention and exactly how it corrects the problems of the free market. Include any other beneficial aspects of the intervention that you find through your own research – make sure you use econ terminology throughout.
Also discuss other Donation Systems Around the World, no need to add a graph here. Explore the policies that are currently implemented across the globe (i.e. some discussed in the articles include – routine removal, presumed consent, organ donor points, “no give, no take”, etc.). Evaluate the limitations of these policies. Also consider how these policies fare in terms of the efficiency vs. equity debate. (You do not need to critique them all, just select from 2 or 3 different countries that you find interesting/appealing.)

 

Sample Solution

Why the market for kidney organs is not a free market in the US

A healthy human is born with two kidneys, but only one is necessary to survive. That raises a question. Should people have the right to sell a kidney they don’t need? Today almost every country in the world answers no. The exception is Iran, where sales of kidney are legal, and prospective sellers can establish a price with prospective buyers. The 1984 National Organ Transplant Act law prohibits the free trade of human organs, including bone marrow. One reason that free-market sales of transplantable kidneys from live donors are illegal in the U.S. is that many policy makers view them as repugnant. According to the World Medical Association and the World Health Association, such sales, especially by live donors, should be condemned.

Accountability for schools under the Equality Act

All schools under the Disability Equality Act 2005 and now subsumed into the Equality Act 2010 have to ensure that all public bodies, therefore, schools have to pay ‘due regard’ to the promotion of equality for young people with disabilities. The EA has two distinct elements that apply to all educational institutions within the UK, a general duty and a specific duty. The EHRC can take action against any schools that do not meet their duties. Hills (2012)

Schools must be aware of the requirement under the general duty to have due regard when carrying out their duties to;

  • Eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation
  • Advance equality of opportunity between people with disabilities and non-disabilities
  • Foster good relations between disabled and non-disabled people.

All staff, students, parents and users of the educational institutions have to comply with this general duty with regard to disabilities.

The specific duty requires schools to show how they are meeting the general duty. The specific duty is about how a school sets out to meet its general duty and how this evidence will be recorded to show what the school has done.

The specific duty requires schools:

  • To publish information to indicate how they are complying with the Public Sector Equality Duty.
  • To prepare and publish one or more specific and measurable equality objectives. These objectiv

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.