The debate over whether getting compensated for the donation of organs is just stirs up moral, religious, and ethical opposition as well as scary hypotheticals. There are many factors to think about when introducing a new market; the biggest being corruption. An unregulated market for the sale of organs opens the doors to potential exploitation and fuels the fire for the black market of organ trafficking. The concern on ethics relates to human dignity. Selling human organs encompasses the possibility of dehumanizing people, essentially forcing them into being seen as a commodity, property, or price. These voiced thoughts address some of the negative possibilities, but nonetheless, the possibilities are just possibilities not absolute effects. The organ shortage continues as the need of organ donors rises. Amid this crisis, there has been a push to persuade more people to donate their and their loved one’s cadaveric organs. However, these efforts seem to be futile, because the gap between supply-and-demand swells each year. The top priority is to increase the number of transplants thus decreasing deaths and ending the suffering of people on dialysis. From all the opposition and speculation, people tend to forget that organ transplantations save lives. They are so blinded by their moral and religious values that they are blinded from the real matter at hand. Economist believe that creating a market for organs will eliminate the gap of supply-and-demand by encouraging people
By offering money, more individuals would readily give up their organs. This would lead to a surplus of organs for transplants. However, an increase in the price of organs would limit those who could afford surgeries. Although selling organs benefits the donor, the patients suffer from money concerns in addition to their original medical issues. One item frequently reveals the corruption of society: money. The process of organ transplants should hold the ultimate aim of saving lives, not the selfish bribe of gaining wealth. Other methods, such as providing life or health insurance, would be less materialistic options for encouraging organ donation. Currently, organ donation only offers the donor a personal feeling of well-being. Jennifer Bard discusses the corruption after researching about organ transplants at the Texas Tech University School of Law. Bard analyzes,“... it has so far been prohibited to offer any financial incentive for registering as a donor or to families of individuals who choose to allow donation after death… no solution to the reluctance of Americans to donate can work until this reluctance is taken seriously and the families who choose not to donate organs are listened to with respect” (121-122). Patients face drastic amounts of debt from medical bills. Rather than exchanging money for organs, help should be offered to ailing patients. Authors from the
Advancements in medicine are constantly offer new ways to prolong the lives of human beings. One of these important developments is organ transplantation, which has allowed people to trade out worn out organs for better parts. This idea seems ideal and offers a new lease on life for those in need. However, the regulation and distribution of organs has led to darker reality. Organs are in high demand with thousands of people on waiting list, with not nearly enough organs available. This shortage has leed to the trafficking of organs and although this is illegal the moral implications of selling body parts comes into question. R.R. Kishore possess a very interesting argument in defense of the
With the increasing need of organs for medical treatment, illegal organ black markets have become more rampant. Under such circumstances, the public debate over whether the government should legalize the sale of living human organs is fiercer. In Joanna MacKay’s essay Organ Sales Will Save Lives, she states that the government should legalize the sale of organs, since the legalization would benefit both the sellers and the buyers. Moreover, to show the potential benefits for the sellers, MacKay provides and analyzes gains from different aspects that sellers may make if the organ sale were legalized. However, what MacKay has shown is still not the whole picture. By simplifying the problems, MacKay overstates the monetary compensation for the organ sale and underestimates the possible role of exploitation, risks to organ sellers and other ethical questions. As a result, the sellers would not benefit as much as she states, and her argument about the bilateral reciprocal consequences for both organ sellers and buyers after legalization would be incomplete.
George Santayana’s quote from the novel “The Life of Reason, volume 1” explains about history and human nature. If you do not learn from your mistakes from the past, you will make the same mistakes again. “Progress, far from consisting in change depends on retentiveness.’’ This means in regards to history that progress does not depend on change but more on the ability to retain from past experience. “When experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual.” Also, “In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted, it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence.” This two quotes explains the human nature that if you don’t learn from your past mistakes, you will be like savages or live forever
The medical industry had been achieving more in the stage of medical advancements, though they are still in the early phase. Artificial organs have been one of those achievements. Although they have achieved such, artificial organs are not perfect. Most doctors as well as patients would prefer to replace a dying organ with a compatible human organ, rather than with an artificial or animal organ. Yet due to a there being less organs donated than recipients, artificial and animal organs are becoming more common in transplants. Most of this issue is because people are unaware of how organ donation works, the organs that can be donated, how many people are in need, and the advancements that have happened in the field. Organ donation saves hundreds of lives every year, but many lives are recklessly lost due to a shortage of organ donors.
There is a well-established industry for the buying and selling of organs to those who are in dire need of a transplant, both legally and illegally, in many different countries. The legalization of the sale of organs in the United States would have serious consequences and raises many ethical dilemmas- regardless of religious beliefs. There are several ideas presented in this paper that present the issues that have hindered the progression of the legalization of organs. Currently, there is an organ waiting list of 123,897 patients on the organ recipient list ,the number of transplant that have actually occurred in January - August 2014 are 19,426 (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network). There is no denying that there is a significant gap between the number of transplant surgeries performed and those awaiting a donor. The ever growing need for these lifesaving organs is clear, but to allow human beings to sell parts of their body is not the solution to this complex problem.
There are a lot of people in this world that are going through organ failure. The National Kidney Foundation even found, “Every fourteen minutes someone is added to the kidney transplant list”. Statistically speaking, that is a great deal of people in need of a vital organ. The author Joanna MacKay talks about the need for organ donations in her article “Organ Sales Will Save Lives”. MacKay disputes her case briefly when stating her thesis in the first paragraph. She gives the audience her opinion on how the selling of organs should be built to become legal. Throughout the text she touches on the black market selling of kidneys. She also incorporates how other third world countries have allowed this practice of organ sales. The article includes her insight on what would happen if organ sales would be legalized and how it would be regulated.
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 worldwide shortage of organs means a price increase in the organs because of the high demand. The consequence to this dilemma is organ trafficking. Organ trafficking occurs in countries predominantly in southeast Asia and parts of the middle east. Organs are distributed illegally through forced donations and donations without getting consent from the donor. The infamous organ black market profits vendors who illegally merchandize. Dr. Debra Budiani-Saberi a professor of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania and F.L. Delmonico professor of medical science at Harvard, brings light upon the disregard of the donor after coerced donations made in the black market. The medical complications of the coerced organs tend to be baleful and
In the United States, there are over one hundred thousand people on the waiting list to receive a life-saving organ donation, yet only one out of four will ever receive that precious gift (Statistics & Facts, n.d.). The demand for organ donation has consistently exceeded supply, and the gap between the number of recipients on the waiting list and the number of donors has increased by 110% in the last ten years (O'Reilly, 2009). As a result, some propose radical new ideas to meet these demands, including the selling of human organs. Financial compensation for organs, which is illegal in the United States, is considered repugnant to many. The solution to this ethical dilemma isn’t found in a wallet; there are other alternatives available
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.
“It is within my power to drastically change his circumstances, but I do not want to give that man a gift if he does not deserve it.” (Smith, 2008) In the movie seven pounds, the actor, made the choice to sacrifice his organs for the good, he felt that he had nothing else to live for, so instead he would give life to someone else who rightfully deserved it. For years, humans have voluntarily donated their organs to caring and loving individuals. They donated freely and without compensation they gave and expected nothing in return. Now, we have individuals who desire to impose upon this freedom, by offering the exchange of organs for money. The selling of organs for monetary value is wrong, it increases the amount of organ trafficking within the black market, it does not create a just weight for those with lower amounts of income, and it is not safe, many people will place their lives at risk all for just a dime.
A controversial and prominent issue in the United States consists of organ transplants. Even though the waiting list currently has 115,000 transplant candidates, this number does not reflect the dire need for organ donors. A valid option the President’s Commission on Bioethics (PCB) should take into consideration consists of regulating an organ market. Currently, organ donors do not receive compensation for their time, effort, and overall donation of their organ. The United States should regulate the opportunity for people to buy and sell organs in a safe and legal environment. This method should be adopted because it is ethically acceptable. The buying and selling of organs respects the autonomy of donors, provides societal beneficence by potentially saving the lives of others, and goes hand-in-hand with the principle of nonmaleficence.
Legalizing the sale of human organs is a more effective practice in comparison to recent alternatives presented to increase the number of organs donated, it will eliminate the current unsafe organ black market, and it is more practical because altruism does not work. There are other alternatives such as presumed consent which work in allocating organs for
Every thirty minutes someone gets added to the waiting list for an organ transplant (‘Frequently Asked Questions”). Not only that, but the number of patients being added to the waiting list is growing larger than the number of donors (“Organ Donation Statistics”). Many people are in the need of some kind of organ donation, so anyone who donates can help to save many lives. Organ donation is also such a great way to give back to people. Another thing is that to donate an organ a person does not have to pay money (“Organ Donation FAQ’s”). The only part that costs money is for the funeral if they are a deceased donor (“Organ Donation FAQ’s”).