Whether or not to compensate kidney donors is a debate that has remained unsettled for awhile. The newest chapter in the discussion took place last week in Stanford as well as in San Fransisco, at the World Transplant Congress.

Professionals in the field and lawmakers alike have largely denounced the practice. Still, there are some who feel that providing incentives could help reduce the shortage of kidneys available.

It is estimated that over 120,000 people are currently waiting for organs they need to survive. Around 18 people die daily while still waiting. Once on the list, it can take up to five years for an organ to become available.

The challenge is further compounded by the fact that kidneys from living donors take to their new bodies better, and for longer periods of time, than kidneys from the deceased.

Human organs cannot be legally sold, per the Organ Transplant Act of 1984. Those who receive the organ can compensate the donor for lost wages and travel expenses. Proposed forms of alternative compensation methods include long-term insurance for future healthcare and reimbursements for tuition.

A study conducted in 2013 found that 75 percent of nephrologists (doctors specializing in kidney-related health) supported the notion of providing long-term insurance as a reward for kidney donation. 78 percent maintained that sales of organs should remain illegal, but 26 percent felt that some form of monetary compensation was appropriate.

Among the nephrologists participating in the study, 37 percent worried about the effect rewarding donors would have on the amount of deceased donors being harvested. Disproportionate exploitation of low income populations was also a concern for 73 percent of the doctors involved.

Proponents of compensating kidney donors suggest that a system that is set up that allows a third party to provide incentive rewards to donors could help everyone involved. Kidneys from living donors would be more readily available to those who need them and recipients would not have to be crippled by the costs.