Persuasive Essay On Organ Abuse

The first organ donation was successfully performed in 1954 (Major). Since then, institutions have set up many regulations and processes that have saved many lives by allowing people to donate their organs, but government policies in the United States have set up laws that prevent individuals to make choices about their own bodies. The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) is a regulation that prevents those who prefer to profit from their donation. The purpose of the act was to, “prohibit the assignment of a monetary value to an organ for transplantation, thus preventing commercialization and ensuring some level of equity in access to organs” (Delmonico). “Punishment includes fines up to $50 000 and 5 years in prison” (Friedman). The only country that legalizes organs to be bought and sold is Iran. The Iranian government recognized the overwhelming increasing of resources needed for dialysis as more and more people were becoming ill, so the government decided to make it legal to pay citizens to have transplants mainly in the UK (Major). When a person is in need of an organ, doctors assess whether or not that person is eligible for a transplant (Bernard). Once they have been approved, the patient will be referred by the doctor to a transplant center where they evaluate the patient’s physical and mental health as well as the patient’s social support to clear the requirements for being considered a viable candidate for an organ transplant, and finding the right donor is all

In most cases, executed or living prisoners would be eligible organ donors. With the high demand for organ transplantations, by allowing prisoners to participate it would produce more happiness than unhappiness. In fact, it seems more appealing to allow prisoners to participate in organ donation than the alternative of doing nothing (Munson, 2012).

In the United States, there are currently 116,608 people in need of a lifesaving organ transplant, and 75,684 people that are currently active waiting list candidates (HRSA, 2017). Between January and September 2017, there have only been 12,211 organ donors (HRSA, 2017) which is far less that the current demand for lifesaving organs. The shortage of donors could lead to an individual looking for outside sources such as the black market to find their lifesaving organ. Offering incentives to persons who chose to donate their organs or those of a deceased loved one is important because it could stop the illegal selling of organs, save the life of someone in need of an organ transplant and benefit both the donor and recipient.

“Illegal trade in kidneys has risen to such a level that an estimated 10,000 black market operation involving purchased human organs now take place annually or more than one an hour” (The Guardian, 2012). People that are in the need of an organ and willing to participate in illegal activities will either send a broker or go directly to another country where people are lacking in the knowledge of the situation or have an extreme disability and buy an organ rom that individual. In most cases a broker will promise the seller a great amount of money, but in the end they will only receive a fraction of the money that was promised and for some they receive no money. If a broker cannot buy an organ they will steal one. “However, when the organ, like many other valuables that cannot be bought, it is stolen resulting in flagrant violation of human rights” (U.N.O.D.C, 2000). It is currently illegal to buy or sell human organ in the United States and many other countries. People involved with the operation of human trafficking will be charged with a trafficking offence. “For a trafficking offence to be established must be evidence of an illegal act (recruitment) followed by an illegal means (coercion) for the purpose of exploitation (organ harvesting), one in ten organ transplants are illegal” (U.N.O.D.C, 2000). Illegal sales of organs are increasing the rate of criminal

The debate has raged on for some time now concerning the ethical issues surrounding the trade in human organs. In the US, the sale of human organs for any economical or other benefits is prohibited. However, this law has done little to stop the trade in human organs. There are a number of fundamental issues that the National Organ Transplant Act seems to have ignored. Banning of the trade in human organs has opened up channels that have enabled the black market for human organs to flourish. According to the World Health Organization,

The demand for organ donors far exceeds the supply of available organs. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) … there are more than 77,000 people in the U.S. who are waiting to receive an organ (Organ Selling 1). The article goes on to say that the majority of those on the national organ transplant waiting list are in need of kidneys, an overwhelming 50,000 people. Although financial gain in the U.S and in most countries is illegal, by legalizing and structuring a scale for organ donor monetary payment, the shortage of available donors could be reduced. Legalizing this controversial issue will help with the projected forecast for a decrease in the number of people on the waiting list, the ethical concerns around benefitting from organ donation, and to include compensation for the organ donor.

“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.

Another reason why organ donation should be mandatory is to encourage medical and scientific breakthroughs. The Center for Organ Recovery and Education states that, “Research centers all around the United States are always in need of donated organs and tissues.” These donated organs and tissues can help cure diseases such as: Cancer, Asthma, Hepatitis, Diabetes, Neurological diseases, and more. (CORE) In addition, connectusfund.org states, “Medical schools are always in need of cadavers that students can work on during their training period.” Despite beliefs to the contrary, uwhealth.org, a website for the health program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, states that even if your organ isn’t viable for transplantation, it can still be used for research, including being used for medical schools as cadavers. These irrefutable pieces of evidence are yet another reason why organ donation should be mandatory in the United States.

Not only is the dilemma of inmates receiving organ transplants affecting physicians, but it affects all citizens equally, as well. It costs taxpayers ten and hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to provide one prisoner with a transplant operation (“Organ transplants for,” 2011). “Efforts to ensure prisoner rights have compromised the lives of law-abiding taxpayers who are the state’s main source of income when it comes to paying for inmates’ medical bills” (Robinson).

The OPTN says that just because someone is in prison doesn’t mean they should not be considered for an organ transplant, the “screening for all potential recipients should be done at the candidacy stage and once listed, all candidates should be eligible for equitable allocation of organs” (648). On the basis of social worth, physicians shouldn’t discriminate by using social value as criteria for medical decisions. Sade says that psychosocial factors may be used as selection criteria, however, because they might shed light on whether or not adequate social support systems exist for the transplant recipient. “The prison sentence is payment for the crime; the prisoner owes nothing more to society, certainly not his or her life” (647). The transplant center brings up the issue of money. When a non-prisoner has a transplant operation, they fund the surgery with the help of insurance and public health programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Prisoners have neither private nor public insurance aside from what the prison system has in their budget, so this begs the question, “should the prison pay for a heart transplant for a convicted criminal?” The answer is no. Most prison systems can only afford to provide general health care, but not the large amount of funds needed for a heart transplant. Sade says the bill for aftercare of a prisoner’s heart transplant done in California in

Innovative advances in the practice of medicine have increased the life span of the average American. This along with the growing population in the United States and has created a shortfall in the number of organs available for transplant today. The current system of allocation used to obtain organs for transplant faces difficulty because of two primary reasons according to Moon (2002). The two perceptions that stop potential organs donors are that the allocation criteria is unfair and favors certain members of society and/or that organs may be allocated to someone who has destroyed their organs by misuse (Moon, 2002). Many individuals decline to donate organs because anyone requiring an organ transplant is placed on a waiting list and it is possible that individuals who have destroyed their organs by their own actions or convicted criminals could receive donated organs before someone whose organs are failing through no fault of their own and positively contribute to society. When a celebrity or wealthy individual requires a transplant they are often viewed as "jumping" the waitlist but

Donating an organ is the ultimate gift any person could give, simply because it saves the life of another. Giving the gift of life is far more important than the right to decide how to dispose of a body that a deceased person will no longer need. When a person is dead, and no longer needs the body, then in all reality a person whom is dying, and could easily be saved by an organ from the deceased person

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.

     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.

Therefore, the provision of organ transplant is not restricted to inmates. Generally, societies have, under the best of conditions, a middling track record when it comes to evaluating the value of the incarcerated population. In relation to this is that the society believes that since the incarcerated population has taken so much from the society through their act which is