Organ failure within today’s world typically means one of two things: a person is put on a waiting list in hopes for an organ match through a donation or they find a match for an organ through a family member or a friend. Within recent years, some have proposed other solutions to this issue, one being the selling of organs for monetary gain or through incentives. This has led some, such as Matthew Allan and Peter Reese to make claims that “current trends regarding the use of financial incentives in medicine suggest that the time is ripe for new consideration of payments for living kidney donation” (Mackellar 54). But what these two fail to see is what harm this suggestion would bring a natural law’s standpoint through a human’s right to flourish. …show more content…
No rational person is going to want to sell an organ unless they feel like it could change their economic status or provide benefits through incentives in place. Scheper-Hughes makes the argument that "a market price—even a fair one—on body parts exploits the desperation of the poor”, which in turn destroys the livelihood of a person knowing that the only rational reason to sell an organ is based on economic struggles (Hudson**). This creates a divide from the rich and the poor where only the lowest will sacrifice their dignity to try and save themselves. Not only does this proposed organ market target the poor, but it also turns a human life into a commodity. We are no longer seen as a physical and complex being, but rather as a sack of organs with a price tag attached. When speaking to Monir Moniruzzaman, he states that even though bought kidneys may save lives, that “if you buy it from the market, it is a product, a commodity” (Resnick 6). By selling an organ, we infringe upon a person’s right to a fulfilling life and instead watch people as they are "picked …show more content…
This makes the human body seem as a means to end end instead of looking at the full picture and livelihood of a person and their right to live. By allowing the sale of organs, we see humans as “just a collection of exchangeable parts” that are available at our disposal (MacKellar 57). We as people have a moral obligation to uphold a person’s livelihood and that simply cannot b accomplished through our body parts being seen as a monetary value. We,
Kishore also notes that the reason for permitting the sale of organs is not to better the health quality of the sellers or to reward them “a long term economic benefit”, as assumed. Comparable monetary or health benefits don’t occur in charitable contributions either, but they are acceptable. The decisions for allowing the sale of organs are set in the interest of saving the lives of incurably ill patients with the help of accessible medical expertise and
“Organs” Satel insists, “are the rare trafficked good that saves lives.” ‘Yuan a Kidney?’ and ‘Financial Incentives for Organ Donation’ discuss opposing views of organ donation and trafficking. The National Kidney Foundation finds financial incentives for organ donation to be a form of exploitation, demeaning to society and all around unethical. Satel, however, holds a different perspective in the sense that if a citizen is informed and consenting to donating an organ to save another life for a monetary gain it could improve not only their welfare but the patient’s welfare as well. “Financial Incentives..” focuses strictly on a logical appeal; while “Yuan a Kidney?” is much more emotional while being logical. Satel provides the attention to donors as well as patients. NFK is speaking from a standpoint of legalities and ethics with no regards to donors as people willing to save a life, and little to patients in need of transplants.
In “Why We Need a Market for Human Organs” Sally Satel, a practicing psychiatrist, tells the Wall Street Journal that people should be allowed to sell their kidneys. Gavin Carney, an Australian nephrologist, states that “the current system isn’t working,” he was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald. He also states that people do not want to just give their organ away for free. Everybody wants money for something they are giving away. Satel claims that Australians would most likely give organs for $50,000. Although that is only a number Dr. Carney came up with and suggested to the federal government. Is selling organs legally such a concern that we as the people should be told if we can get money for the organs we sell?
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.
Paying people for giving their kidneys would dramatically increase the number of donors and save many more lives as opposed to waiting for people to donate their organs out of the kindness of their heart and expect nothing in return. MacKay appeals to a person’s logical nature when she states that money rules people, in which it very much so does. The money that could be gained from legal organ transactions is immense; MacKay states that it is in the ballpark of $25,000. MacKay’s solution would not only legalize the selling of organs, but also make it regulated by the government, eliminating many people’s fears of the possible consequences of legalization. She also argues how it would be easier to control the lawful sale of organs as opposed to the unlawful sale.
Thousands of people in the United States are dying each year because of a failed kidney, and have no chance to receive one. In “Organ Sales Will Save Lives” by MIT student, Joanna MacKay argues against banning the sale of organs, but instead recommends legalizing and regulating the trade of human organs in order to try and save people’s lives. MacKay reports that in America alone, approximately 350,000 people struggle each year with kidney failure. Since there is no cure, and buying kidneys is currently illegal, this leads the person to search for other options that usually result in purchasing organs on the black market. MacKay states that a black market purchase allows the recipient to buy a fresh, healthy organ from a living donor without the agonizing process of waiting on a list (157-158). MacKay believes that both the recipient and donor would benefit in the legalization and regulation process and if this comes to pass, more organs would be made available for transplant and many people would get the chance to live another day.
Another argument against the idea of a market in human organs, presented by T.L. Zutlevics (Patient Ethicist at the Children, Youth & Women's Health Service in South Australia) is that if organ sales were legal, first-world countries would have a motivation to keep less-developed countries poor so they would have a source of organs.
Throughout history physicians have faced numerous ethical dilemmas and as medical knowledge and technology have increased so has the number of these dilemmas. Organ transplants are a subject that many individuals do not think about until they or a family member face the possibility of requiring one. Within clinical ethics the subject of organ transplants and the extent to which an individual should go to obtain one remains highly contentious. Should individuals be allowed to advertise or pay for organs? Society today allows those who can afford to pay for services the ability to obtain whatever they need or want while those who cannot afford to pay do without. By allowing individuals to shop for organs the medical profession’s ethical
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.
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.
Organ sale—for example, allowing or encouraging consenting adults to become living kidney donors in return for money—has been proposed as a possible solution to the seemingly chronic shortage of organs for transplantation. Many people however regard this idea as abhorrent and argue both that the practice would be unethical and that it should be banned. This entry outlines some of the different possible kinds of organ sale, briefly states the case in favor, and then examines the main arguments against.
“73,000 people sit on waiting lists for a kidney- 18 of them will die tomorrow and 6,000 more patients join the list every year” (Monti, 2013, p. 1). To get needed organs, many people have proposed the idea of selling organs to persuade the general public to give organs instead of donating and make the availability greater. Currently in America, the only way to obtain an organ is to have it donated by someone who is a match, which greatly revolves around family members and friends. If a family member is not a match, then the patient gets put on a waiting list that may take months to fulfill. This has turned wealthier patients to buying illegal organs off the black market. Furthermore, it creates an unfair advantage for the wealthier patients
The legalization of selling human organs would make the poor even more susceptible to exploitation. The poor would be tempted to sell their organs in order to make money and will cause them to be seen as a source of organs and not as human beings. A form of exploitation that will be used, if selling organs is legalized, is taking the organ without paying the donor either at all or in full. There have been incidents like this in other places around the world such as cases in Bangladesh where, “ kidney sellers in his native Bangladesh and found they typically didn’t get the money they were promised” (Monir Moniruzzaman). This is an example of the serious problem that is present when people allow others to take their organs in exchange for money.
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