Why Legalizing Organ Sales Will Help Save Lives, End Violence

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.

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

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.

Before being paid was brought up in this survey, people were a lot more willing to donate to people they knew. When talking about donating organs those people who were willing to do donate were sixty-eight percent to people they didn’t know according to the survey taken by Ariana Eunjung Cha (Washington Post). Twenty-three percent more said that they would donate to family and friends, and nine percent said they would not donate at all. Then surveyors were asked to consider doing the same thing but in addition to fifty thousand dollars in compensation. Sixty-three percent said that the payment would make then even more likely to do it, and those willing to donate to only friends and family sixty percent of them said they would be more willing to donate. Out of the original nine percent who said they wouldn’t donate, twenty-six percent of the nine percent changed their mind and said they would reconsider because of the money. With these results, researchers said, “Thus payment motivated more US voters to positively consider donor nephrectomy rather than to reject the notion of donating a kidney” (Washingtonpost.com). In this case you can see the proof of these numbers, that more people will be willing to help complete strangers be able to live if they get compensated. Organ transplants do take place today in the world but, the donor gets the organ, the doctor gets paid, but

In this scenario, the good of saving lives out-weighs the bad of the selling of organs.

It doesn’t make sense for people to die unnecessarily if there is a way to easily save their lives. Author of "Organ Sales Will Save Lives" Joanna Mackay seems to agree. In her essay, she argues that the government should regulate organ sales, rather than ban them. In "Organ Sales Will Save Lives" Mackay uses facts and statistics to reveal shocking numbers to the audience dealing with the long and lengthy waitlist for an organ, as well as how many patients have passed annually due to end-stage renal disease. Mackay also uses counterarguments in pieces of her essay to relive any doubts or questions they have to persuade them to take her opinion. The author also

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.

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.

In “Organ Sales Save Lives”, the author argues for the legalization and regulation of selling human organs, specifically kidneys, to those who need them. Her reasoning is that the laws forbidding this practice have enabled a black market that is harmful to both buyer and seller of organs. MacKay states that with no legally enforceable contracts and dubious procedural standards both parties in these transactions expose themselves to unnecessary risk. She claims that buyers can wait up to 10 years before receiving a kidney, with many dying before then, and sellers often do not receive fair compensation. MacKay believes that we do not have the moral right to try to stop those who live in abject poverty from selling a part of their own body to

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.

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

The first reason for this disagreement is legalizing selling human organs only benefits for people who have enough money to pay for the organ; in other words, for middle class and rich people. It is certainly true that the

The first major issue with respect to a legal organ market is the issue of living donors. Gregory extends the issue of living donation of semen, eggs and blood to include organs. This is false equivalency. The human body readily regenerates semen, eggs and blood; it does not regenerate kidneys. Living donors who sell their organs suffer negative health outcomes. While the body is engineered in such a way that kidney capacity

Proponents of financial compensation for organ donors argue that it’s legal to be paid for donating reproductive material, and they suggest that organs should be handled in the same manner. The obvious difference, however, is that inability to conceive a child isn’t life-threatening. Healthy organs for transplant are limited, and recipients must be carefully selected to ensure that the transplant is successful. Imagine the moral chaos that would ensue if organs were sold to the highest bidder.