Dr. David King's Arguments In Favor Of Organ Donation

To support his argument, Huebner uses statements such as "The sellers are often tricked or coerced by brokers, they don 't always get the promised payment, and even when they are paid, that rarely solves whatever problem prompted them to sell the organ. In fact, the "solution" usually makes matters much worse.” Huebner also states that "Rich patients in need of organs take advantage of the world 's poor"(Huebner, Albert), insinuating that only rich people can afford to buy organs. While both of these statements support the claim made, there isn 't much actual research to support it. No evidence or believable examples were found in the article. While it may be true that more rich people are able to receive organ transplants, it 's not fair to say that it 's only the rich people who are exploiting the poor. That is, if they are even being exploited at all. Who is to say that the poor people who would sell organs wouldn 't be doing so in order to make a better life for themselves and their family? Until an organ market is established and research is done to support these claims, there is very little fact to support them. This leads into the next claim, that commodifying organs will take the integrity out of donating.

Opponents like to claim that it exploits the poor. “Opponents of … organ trade argue that buying organs from the poor is simply exploitation...” (Croughs 1/9). While it could be seen as exploitation, most of the time it’s simply not that at all. People think its exploitation because of the fact that their quite literally selling their body for money, but is it still considered exploitation if it can benefit an abundance of other people in need? Another claim opponents of organ trade argue is “Selling an organ entails more risk than working at a factory or shining shoes…” (Croughs 2/9). While this statement could be proven true, if the organ or human matter was properly taken out and the patient got treatment after the removal, it wouldn’t be as dangerous. It definitely wouldn’t be as dangerous if it was just a kidney or a vial of blood being removed, a person can live perfectly fine without either of those, if they have no further medical issues. Likewise, selling an organ compared to working in a factory is more dangerous if done improperly, but either way the person makes money for their work. Also people claim that the donors “… were back in debt despite having sold a kidney, possibly related to issues linked to their social status…” (Hudson 2/6). This wouldn’t have happened if the person used the money wisely. To say the least, if a poverty-stricken person was to sell their own organs it wouldn’t be

I agree with all of the reasons you gave for why patients should not be legally allowed to purchase organs. Firstly, I agree that a gap would form between those people who could afford the organs and those that could not. Then, as you alluded to, there are ethical concerns associated with a person selling a part of their body with money as the incentive, rather than out of the goodness of his/her heart. I think when you start using money as the reason for doing something, some people can make rash decisions that they may come to regret later. Finally, as with any surgery, there are going to be physical and/or emotional risks for both the donor and the recipient. It is a major decision if a living person was to donate an organ,

There are diversified augments in favor of and against organ sales. I will focus on the arguments of Joanna MacKay from her essay “Organ Sales Will Save Lives” and R.R Kishore’s essay “Human Organs, Scarcities, and Sale: Morality Revisited”. MacKay argues in favor of organ trade legalization stating “government should not ban the sale of human organs; they should regulate it. Kishore argues against organ trade legalization stating “the integrity of the human body should never be subject to trade”.

Every day, numerous people across the world stop their lives for four hours to get hooked up to a dialysis machine at a hospital nearby. This machine helps to remove harmful wastes, toxins, excess salt, and water from their body because unfortunately their body cannot do so for them. These people wait on a list until they can one day receive a kidney transplant because kidney failure has resulted in their body not being able to clean their blood properly. More than 300,000 Americans have kidney failure and use dialysis daily and the statistics are only continuing to grow. I am going to argue that the best to solve this problem is to legalize the regulated sale of organs to better society as a

There are several reasons besides the obvious ethical issues that make it wrong to sell organs from live donors. First of all the dangers presented to the donor. Most of the organ donors who would donate their organs for money will mostly come from third world nations. There are two main problems with this. The ignorance of the donor to the risks involved before he or she gives consent, and the fact that the “middle-men” involved are motivated by money so the most profitable way to remove the organ will be used, putting the health of the donor second. Another issue that would be presented is people will take patients off of life support earlier than they would otherwise if they are motivated by money.

As far as my concern I Believe that Organ sale could save lives, so the question of its ethicality demands consideration. Do people have the right to sell their own organs? Or do the ethical concerns raised by the idea of organ sale outweigh that right? Both arguments against and for organ sale have merit, especially considering organ sale in terms of a single payer market, as well as the argument regarding the right of a person to sell own their own organ.

Organ donation is the medical process of voluntarily giving one or more of your organs to someone in need, whether it be someone you know or a stranger. It is strictly voluntary, no payment for the organ/s will be given from the hospital, the recipient or the recipients family. In organ donation, there are two types of donations, living organ donation and deceased organ donation. Living organ donation is when the donor is still alive and voluntarily chooses to donate one or more of their organs to a recipient(s) in need. Whereas, deceased organ donation happens after the donor has passed away, and consent was given to be able to donate their organs.

Every day, 20 people die because they are unable to receive a vital organ transplant that they need to survive. Some of these people are on organ donation lists and some of them are not. The poor and minorities are disproportionately represented among those who do not receive the organs they need. In the United States alone, nearly 116,000 people are on waiting lists for vital organ transplants. Another name is added to this list every 10 minutes. This paper will argue that organ donation should not be optional. Every person who dies, or enters an irreversible vegetative state with little or no brain function, should have his or her organs-more specifically, those among the organs that are suitable for donation-harvested. A single healthy donor who has died can save up to eight lives (American Transplant Foundation).

The ethical issue for the majority of people in the U.S. does not seem to be whether donating organs should be allowed, but instead should someone be compensated for their donation. As described earlier, the U.S. has a major shortage of organs and an even greater shortage is found in some areas of the world. However, countries like Iran have found a way to eliminate their shortage completely. “Iran adopted a system of paying kidney donors in 1988 and within 11 years it became the only country in the world to clear its waiting list for transplants.” (Economist, 2011) Although this sounds promising, it is important to look at the effects on the organ donor. In a study done on Iranian donors who sold their kidneys, it was found that many donors were negatively affected emotionally and physically after donating and that given the chance most would never donate again nor would they advise anyone else to do so. (Zargooshi, 2001) Additionally, many claimed to be worse off financially after donating due to an inability to work. (Goyal, 2002) To some, this last set of findings would be enough to supersede the benefit of clearing the organ waiting lists.

     In the United States, organ sales are illegal, and conducted only on the black market and with either unlicensed or underhanded doctors performing the operations. The law prohibiting selling organs is there primarily to protect a person’s life and “pursuit of happiness.” What happens when people get paid for donating organs? A human being only needs one lung and one kidney; many people would endanger their health by donating organs to get money. A booming industry of organ sales would emerge, with some people stooping to violent means in order to forcibly acquire more organs to sell and get rich off of.

The legalization of organ sales has been proposed as a solution to two distinct problems. The first is the problem of illegal organ trafficking and the second is the problem of inadequate supplies of organs available for transplants. Gregory (2011) outlined the case for legalizing organ sales by arguing that the current shortage of organs fuels a black market trade that benefits nobody except criminals. He further argues that such a move would add organs to the market, thereby saving the lives of those who would otherwise die without a transplant, while delivering fair value to the person donating the organ. There are a number of problems with the view that legalizing the organ trade is beneficial. Such a move would exacerbate negative health outcomes for the poor, strengthening inequality, but such a move would also violate any reasonable standard of ethics, by inherently placing a price on one's life and health. This paper will expand on these points and make the case that we should not allow people to pay for organs.

The average human is born with two kidneys, yet a person only needs one to survive. This fact makes giving a kidney to someone in need common sense. However, most would not volunteer to go under surgery for nothing in return. If the government were to remove the price ceiling for organs, there would be no shortage for kidneys, people who need money would now have a chance making a profit, and people who need a kidney now have a better chance of saving their life. Since people who can afford a kidney could now buy one, people who could not afford one go far up the waiting list so that they would not have to wait several years. Overall, I strongly agree that removing the price ceiling on organs could benefit the person in need of some extra cash and the person whose life depends on a

Organ donations not only save lives but also money and time. If organ donations became prevalent the organ recipient would no longer need dialysis. Since there is no need for dialysis the cost to use the machine would lessen; this means that the cost of equipment would decrease, saving the hospital and insurance company’s money. More lives would be saved as well as benefit from those that no longer need an organ. In the book titled “Elements of Bioethics” adult organ transplants are only that have medical insurance. If organs are taken from recently deceased the cost for those that has no medical coverage was lessen. The process of organ transplantation is life changing and time is crucial. With shorter waiting time it would put ease on the person’s heart to know that this lifesaving event would happen sooner rather than later. In addition, when the organ is taken from the recently deceased the risk would be eliminated from

Selling organs is a rising problem in the healthcare community, government and morality. Organ sales has become the topic of discussion for numerous reasons. Some of which being lowering the wait time on the organ transplant waitlist and taking advantage of the financially disadvantaged. This issue affects many people on many different levels, some people morally or legally but mostly importantly medically. What this basically comes down to is: “Who are we to judge what people do with their bodies?”. The answer to this question lays in many different sources. The simplified answer is no we can not tell people what they can and can not tell other people what they can and can ot do with their bodies.