Dutch TV Show Offers Human Kidney as Prize

According to the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, the local TV network BNN is going to broadcast “The Big Donorshow” on Friday. The premise: a 37-year-old terminally ill woman is going to choose a recipient for one of her kidneys from three contestants who suffer one variety of kidney trouble or another. It is most certainly in poor taste, and it is dubious ethically. However, the question isn’t about the TV show as much as it is about the pitiful state of organ donor programs throughout the world.

The general ghoulishness is obvious, and the stress under which the donor will find herself is palpable from thousands of miles away. She is, effectively, choosing who will live and who will die (or at best, continue to suffer). Reuters reports, “She will make her choice based on the contestants’ history, profile and conversations with their families and friends. Viewers will be able to send text messages advising her during the 80-minute show.”

The ruling coalition parties have pitched an appropriate fit. Joop Atsma, Christian Democrat member of the Dutch parliament, said: “This program should not be aired. I wonder how the two losing contestants must feel if they are denied on national television the help they need for their illness.” Several MPs are trying to keep the program off the air. Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the Dutch Transplant Foundation noted, “This is going in the direction of selling organs.”

BNN Chairman Laurens Drillich defended the program to De Telegraaf saying, “The chance for a kidney for the contestants is 33 percent. This is much higher than that for people on a waiting list. You would expect it to be better but it is worse.” Reuters added, “BNN says it wants to highlight the difficulties faced by kidney sufferers in getting donor organs as a tribute to BNN founder Bart de Graaff, who died of kidney failure five years ago, despite several transplants.”

This show is a ghastly uniting of supply and demand. Demand for organs far exceeds supply, or Mr. Drillich’s 33% wouldn’t be anywhere near accurate. Millions go to their graves each day with organs that could save lives or improve the quality of life for someone else. Even allowing for religious objections, thousands upon thousands of potential donors simply don’t do the right thing. In a world that has pills for erectile dysfunction and creams to reduce facial wrinkles, it seems painfully obvious that priorities need reordering.

There is a simple solution as well. When a person dies, the current presumption in most countries is that he does not wish to be a donor. Or if he does, the doctor doesn’t ask the family because of emotional distress. A new law that presumes the deceased is a donor unless there is proof to the contrary (or a family objection) would vastly increase supply. Safeguards can be established for those who object on religious or other grounds, and screening to ensure disease-free organs must be tightened. And it would open up 80 minutes on BNN Friday for something a bit more worthy.

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home