In 1984, Congress passed the National Organ Transplant Act, which outlawed the buying and selling of internal organs. The National Task Force on Organ Transplantation recommended to Congress in 1986 that organ donation remain purely voluntary, governed by the altruism of the donor or the donor's family. At the current price (zero), the quantity supplied of human organs does not come close to meeting the quantity demanded. In 2018, slightly less than 1 out of 4 patients with a diseased organ were able to get a transplant. This has led some people to call for allowing a market in organs. The families of donors would receive a cash incentive to provide organs for transplant; only after death (this proposal does not involve paying live donors for organs). One economist has estimated that a relatively low price for organs ($4000-$6,000) could greatly reduce if not eliminate the organ shortage. Hospitals would still be in charge of the transplant process, by matching patients with donated organs. However, more organs should be provided for transplant and more lives could be saved. Carefully read the information below, and then do three things with the data. 

(1) Make two columns (one for costs and the other for benefits) and place each piece of information in the correct column. 

(2) Prioritize each list, from most important to least important. 

(3) Write a three-paragraph analysis. Paragraphs one and two should explain why you feel the top two costs and top two benefits are the most important. Finally,
paragraph three is your analysis, based on your interpretation of all the facts listed below, explain whether you believe we should pay donors for organs or not. The paper should be typed and no more than one page in length.
1. Under the current system, roughly 30 Americans die every day waiting for an organ transplant. This number would drop significantly if a price rationing system were adopted.
2. Some people are concerned that if we pay donors it will reduce altruism and replace it with greed.
3. Even worse, several studies suggest that paying for donations may actually reduce the incentive for people to choose to be organ donors after death.
4. Payments for organs will help families of the donors pay for burial costs and other death related expenses.
5. The group “Taxpayer Protection” claims that if more organs were available, the government would spend even more money on Medicare funded organ
transplants, thus increasing the national debt.
6. However, at studies have shown that organ transplants can be much cheaper than terminal medical care (taking care of patients as they slowly die from lack of a
transplant) as long as the patients live at least three years after the surgery.
7. Minorities often wait longer for transplants because fewer minorities donate their organs so there are not as many close matches. Price rationing could help alleviate this problem, as more organs should be available, thus increasing the chances for a close match.
8. Some people are concerned that creating a market for organs might lead to people being killed to harvest their organs to be sold to others in need.
9. A group of religious leaders is concerned about coma patients. They fear that if families of coma patients know they can make money from the sale of the organs they might be more inclined to “pull the plug”.
10. Some people are very concerned that price rationing of organs could benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.
11. If the market is able to eliminate the shortage of organs in the U.S., hospitals could treat patients from all over the world and save more lives. Micro cost/benefit anualy