Argumentative Essay: The Facts About Organ Donation

The U.S Department of Health and Human Services report that more than 123,000 people in the United States need an organ transplant to save their life (Hall, 2015). Only 45% of American adults are registered organ donors while 21 people die every day waiting for an organ transplant (Wen, 2014). With the help of organ sales, it would be possible to help more of those who are waiting for organs to save or prolong their life. An organ sale is the selling or trade of human organs, tissues or body parts for transplantation, in return for financial compensation. When most people think of organ sales, they think of someone selling their organs for a profit to benefit themselves, versus someone who is a donor, who donates their organs or body parts to benefit those who need transplants. This creates a discrepancy between selfishness and selflessness. Why is the sale of organs selfish if selling an organ for transplantation is beneficial to both the donor and the

recipient? I believe that through a utilitarian view, organ sales, financial compensation to living donors, and autonomous consent to selling an organ is morally permissible for many beneficial reasons.
In September of 2016 more than 100,000 individuals were waiting for a kidney transplant, more than 14,000 were waiting for liver transplants, and roughly 4,000 were waiting for heart transplants in the United States (Organ Donation Statistics, n.d.).

After fatality, one registered organ donor can save up to 50 lives with the donation of organs, tissues and body parts (Facts About Organ Donation, n.d.). It is unknown how many people are saved each year after organ transplantation due to many different factors such as different recipient matches and available donors. But, transplantation does save or prolong the lives of many individuals each year. Not only does organ transplantation have life changing differences to the recipient, the success rate for transplantation is between 80 and 90 percent (Facts About Organ Donation, n.d.). If this process is beneficial to the recipient and the donor with high success rates and many saved lives, then organ sales should be allowed if an individual chooses to do such a

thing.
Dangerous jobs carry many of the same risks that are associated with organ sales. Jobs such as a policeman, fireman, pilot, construction worker and ground maintenance men are all very important to everyday life. Without these jobs we would not have safety, ways of fast travel, houses or railroads. Along with these jobs come risks, most jobs in the United States come with some type of risk. Employees are aware of the risks that come with their profession and continue to take on such tasks that are required of them. Workers take on these tasks because they enjoy what they do or are trying to bring home an income to support themselves and / or their family. If an individual is aware of the risks that come with the donation of an organ or a body part, they should be allowed to donate for financial compensation. This is not with any difference than a dangerous job. In both circumstances an individual is aware of the risks their actions can cause and they are making money doing it. I do not believe that the act of organ sales is selfish in any way since it is beneficial to the recipient and donor. If a person or family is struggling for money and an individual comes to a conclusion of selling an organ for an income to survive, they are doing it to increase the outcome of life, which is deemed morally permissible.
Through a utilitarianism view, it is not morally permissible to follow an action that is secondary to a command, taboo based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders or supernatural beings (Nathanson, n.d.). If the decision to donate an organ, tissue or body part is not made independently, than it is deemed as not morally acceptable. Within this last year Turkey has had an increasing amount of problems with recruiting individuals to donate organs. Boris Wolfam was arrested this year after being found guilty for bribing desperate Syrians from refugee camps and detention to sell a kidney in exchange for legal protection (Scheper-Hughes, 2016). With more awareness of this issue, there can be rules and regulations created added against it. In the moral world this is creating increased controversy, making it difficult to deem organ sales as permissible. Although the recruitment of individuals is not tolerated in any way, donors are finding a greater quality of life after donation and are helping save lives of recipients, increasing happiness and pleasure for both, supposing this as morally permissible, without the recruiting of individuals.
Nancy Scheper-Hughes is a professor of medical anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, and director of Organs Watch; as well as advises the World Health Organization, the European Union and the United Nations (Scheper-Hughes). In her Washing Post, Nancy disputes the benefits of organ sales. “You can’t put a price on life,” she says. Unaware of the physical changes, organ donors can go through drastic physical and mental changes that could potentially do more harm to their bodies over time. Kidney donation can lead to negative side affects such as chronic pain, depression, suicide, self hatred, distorted body image, a sense of emptiness, anger, regret, isolation and for some in native communities physical abuse (Scheper-Hughes, 2016). While a donor may sell their organs, tissues or body parts to financially aid themselves or their family, in the long run it is “destroying lives”. If a donor knows all of the side affects that come along with donating an organ or body part, a person should be allowed to make this decision autonomously.
Police have found that the donation of kidneys have become forced or are bribed into selling their kidney for legal protection (Scheper-Hughes, 2016). Nancy states, “In the United States, mandated independent advocates for living donors, who represent the needs and motives of every living kidney donor, have failed to identify cases in which force, coercion and fraud have motivated individuals to forfeit an organ” (Scheper-Hughes, 2016). This becomes a gray area, where the moral permissibility of selling organs is challenged. Police are now more cautions of these illegal doings of organ sales (immoral permissibility) and there are advocates who watch out for donors for this reason. With more strict laws and more awareness from the advocates problems such as these can be avoided and regulated.
Through a utilitarianism view, actions are morally permissible if the good outweighs the bad, if they increase happiness or pleasure (Nathanson, n.d.). Actions are not morally permissible if they increase pain or unhappiness, or are followed because of a command, tradition or orders given by leaders or supernatural beings (Nathanson, n.d.). Although there are negative side affects that come with the removal of organs, such as a kidney, there are still benefits to both the donor and the recipient if the donor chooses to do so. With increased law, awareness and regulation, forcing organ sales on an individual for legal benefits would be nearly impossible. After extensive research, I believe that the sale of organs is morally permissible with autonomous consent even if it is for financial compensation. The recipient and the donor are both receiving benefits from transplantation and are both having increased happiness and pleasure in life.