Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues surrounding organ donation
Ethics and organ sales
Ethical issues surrounding organ donation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical issues surrounding organ donation
The commercialization of human body parts has been, over time, on the upward trend. Kidney failure being relatively on the rise, more and more people have a need and desire to boost their lives by kidney transplants. Since the human body can function effectively with one kidney, some people do not mind donating their kidneys for some consideration. However, does this not break the ethics code? Is it not reducing human dignity to monetary terms by placing a price tag on human body part? As the essay questions the morality and the ethics of this practice, the idea of black market kidney donations arise which is evidence of clear commercialization of the human life and exploitation of the poor.
In a paper published in 1988 by the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics addressing the ethical and moral issues in kidney transplant, the paper addressed moral concerns about a possible concern about a potential and highly possible market for human body part. Before long, the paper had its undesired effect. Schulman notes that “Many people sent emails inquiring on how they would donate their kidneys. I would like more information about it and how I could sell one of my kidneys to your university because I really need money.” They had ranging reasons as to why they wished to donate their kidneys. Some wanted to use the
…show more content…
money gained from the sale to finance their college education which is very dear. This shows the effect that this market may have on the poor population. They are forced out of circumstances to trade on their body parts not on good-will but because of financial constraints. The insufficiency of organs for transport cannot be underscored.
Just to enumerate a few facts about the dire need for kidneys, a look at the United States might cast a clear picture. As of March 6, the people who were on a waiting list for an organ transplant stood at 113, 143 with the majority waiting for a kidney transplant, 91, 015. In addition, in the year 2011, the US witnessed about 15,417 kidney transplants of which a significant 5,232 was from living donors. One of the critical questions should ask him or herself is, did this people voluntarily and without any undue economic coercion agree to donate their kidney? The answer is probably in the
negative. The shortage of kidneys for transplant has steered the world to the wrong end. Both municipal and international law are being violated for the sake of saving a life. A good example of violation of international law principles was witnessed in China where a 17 year old, a minor for that matter, donated his kidney. How on earth can a minor give consent as to such a life threatening operation? The teenager is currently suffering from a renal deficiency condition. To make matters worse, the teenager did this sale in order to fund himself to buy an iPhone. Was it worth it? The love for material gain has canvassed the need to keep the body healthy. The young boy, in an endeavor to own an iPhone, trades his body to finance the purchase of an earthly commodity. So sad! It is reported that the black market for human body part is real (Singer). Otherwise, assuming that such a market would not exist would be absolute insanity. With such a high demand of the product in the market and the economic inability of several people, it is highly likely. However, such poor people are usually ignorant on the proper channels of donating kidneys. Therefore, at the prospect donating one for a slight consideration from agents, $5000 is usually a tall order for them. They end up donating their kidneys for money. It is saddening to learn that such agents are paid as high as $150,000 by the recipient. The bulk of this finances end up in the pockets on unscrupulous agents who are in breach of the law and morality in this matter. “Most of the benefit from organ sales goes to middlemen. Havocscope, which monitors black markets, found last May that the average reported amount paid to kidney donors was $5,000, while the average price paid by recipients was $150,000. "The real injustice to the poor is they are getting so little, while those who are involved in these illegal sales are getting all the money," says Rev. Brendan McGuire, vicar general of the Diocese of San Jose.” (Schulman 1) As many scholars and critical thinkers would have it, the trade of organ donation should be organized and legalized. Mass emancipation should be conducted. Though safe, the health hazards of kidney transplants cannot be over-estimated. This is potentially a life threatening operation which has witnessed several cases of unscrupulous agents defrauding the donors of the money earned from the sale of the part. In fact, the agents who suffer no health hazard pocket as much as 95% of the returns. In addition, instead of conducting such sale commercially, those who are willing to be donors should be given non-monetary benefits such as life insurance covers and funeral expenses at their death. Or in other instances, those who are willing to donated kidneys should ordinarily be given a priority in kidney transplant over others. Those unwilling to donate should be implanted kidneys in case there is a surplus. In this way, commercialization of the kidney would be more of life saving than commercial.
“Organ Sales Will Save Lives” by Joanna MacKay be an essay that started with a scenario that there are people who died just to buy a kidney, also, thousands of people are dying to sell a kidney. The author stood on her point that governments should therefore stop banning the sale of human organs, she further suggests that it should be regulated. She clearly points that life should be saved and not wasted. Dialysis in no way could possibly heal or make the patient well. Aside from its harshness and being expensive, it could also add stress to the patient. Kidney transplant procedure is the safest way to give hope to this hopelessness. By the improved and reliable machines, transplants can be safe—keeping away from complications. Regulating
Joanna MacKay says in her essay, Organ Sales Will Save Lives, that “Lives should not be wasted; they should be saved.” Many people probably never think about donating organs, other than filling out the paper work for their drivers’ license. A reasonable amount of people check ‘yes’ to donate what’s left of their bodies so others may benefit from it or even be able to save a life. On the other hand, what about selling an organ instead of donating one? In MacKay’s essay, she goes more in depth about selling organs. Honestly, I did not really have an opinion on organ sales, I just knew little about it. Nonetheless, after I studied her essay, I feel like I absolutely agreed with her. She argues that the sale of human organs should be authorized. Some crucial features in an argument consist of a clear and arguable position, necessary background information, and convincing evidence.
Yearly, thousands die from not receiving the organs needed to help save their lives; Anthony Gregory raises the question to why organ sales are deemed illegal in his piece “Why legalizing organ sales would help to save lives, end violence”, which was published in The Atlantic in November of 2011. Anthony Gregory has written hundreds of articles for magazines and newspapers, amongst the hundreds of articles is his piece on the selling of organs. Gregory states “Donors of blood, semen, and eggs, and volunteers for medical trials, are often compensated. Why not apply the same principle to organs? (p 451, para 2)”. The preceding quote allows and proposes readers to ponder on the thought of there being an organ
First of all, we can assess issues concerning the donor. For example, is it ever ethically acceptable to weaken one person’s body to benefit another? It has to be said that the practiced procedures are not conducted in the safest of ways, which can lead to complications for both donors and recipients (Delmonico 1416). There are also questions concerning of informed consent: involved donors are not always properly informed about the procedure and are certainly not always competent to the point of fully grasping the situation (Greenberg 240). Moral dilemmas arise for the organ recipient as well. For instance, how is it morally justifiable to seek and purchase organs in foreign countries? Is it morally acceptable to put oneself in a dangerous situation in order to receive a new organ? Some serious safety issues are neglected in such transactions since the procedures sometimes take place in unregulated clinics (Shimazono 959). There is also the concept of right to health involved in this case (Loriggio). Does someone’s right to health have more value than someone else’s? Does having more money than someone else put your rights above theirs? All of these questions have critical consequences when put into the context of transplant tourism and the foreign organ trade. The answers to these questions are all taken into account when answering if it is morally justifiable to purchase
It is said that “Some agree with Pope John Paul II that the selling of organs is morally wrong and violates “the dignity of the human person” (qtd. In Finkel 26), but this is a belief professed by healthy and affluent individuals” (158). MacKay is using ethos the show the morality of those that believe it is wrong for organ sales. The morals shown are those of people who have yet to experience a situation of needing a new organ. Having a healthy and wealthy lifestyle, they cannot relate to those that have trouble with money and a unhealthy lifestyle as the poor. The poor and the middle class are the ones that suffer being last on the list for a transplant, thus have different ethics. Paying an absurd amount of money and still having to be at the bottom of the list for a transplant, is something no person anywhere in the world should have to
Richard A. Epstein’s “Thinking the Unthinkable: Organ Sales” (2005) is an argument trying to convince people that selling human organs is acceptable in order to increase the availability for those in need of an organ transplant. Epstein says money will motivate more people to donate their organs to those in need. He also looks at the argument from the point of the recipient of the organ and argues that the expense of buying an organ will not increase the price of getting an organ transplant.
Death is an unavoidable factor in life. We are all expected to die, but for some of the people the end does not have to come too soon. Joanna MacKay in her article Organ Sales Will Save discuss how the legalization of the organs sale, possesses the capability of saving thousands of lives. MacKay in her thesis stipulates that the government should not ban the human organs sale rather they should regulate it (MacKay, 2004). The thesis statement has been supported by various assertions with the major one being that it shall save lives. The author argues that with the legalized sale of organs, more people would be eager to donate their kidneys.
Organ sales and donation are a controversial topic that many individuals cannot seem to agree upon. However, if someone close; a family member, friend, or someone important in life needed a transplant, would that mindset change? There are over one hundred and nineteen thousand men, women, and children currently waiting on the transplant list, and twenty-two of them die each day waiting for a transplant (Organ, 2015). The numbers do not lie. Something needs to be done to ensure a second chance at life for these individuals. Unfortunately, organ sales are illegal per federal law and deemed immoral. Why is it the government’s choice what individuals do with their own body? Organ sales can be considered an ethical practice when all sides of the story are examined. There are a few meanings to the word ethical in this situation; first, it would boost the supply for the
In 1954, the first organ transplant was conducted successfully in the United States. (Clemmons, 2009) Nowadays, the technology of organ transplant has greatly advanced and operations are carried out every day around the world. According to current system, organ sales are strictly prohibited in the United States. (Clemmons, 2009) However, the donor waiting list in the United States has doubled in the last decade and the average waiting time for a kidney is also increasing. (Clemmons, 2009) In the year 2007, over 70,000 patients were on the waiting list for a kidney and nearly 4500 of them died during the waiting period. In contrast to the increasing demand for kidney, organ donation has been in a decrease. (Wolfe, Merion, Roys, & Port, 2009) Even the government puts in great effot to increase donation incentives, the gap between supply and demand of organs still widens. In addition, the technology of therapeutic cloning is still not mature and many obstacles are met by scientists. (Clemmons, 2009) Hence, it is clear that a government regulated kidney market with clear legislation and quality control is the best solution to solve the kidney shortage problem since it improves the lives of both vendors and patients.
A pittance for your kidney? It’s highly unlikely that anyone would answer yes to that question; however what if someone offered significantly more than a pittance? A thousand dollars, or perhaps even five thousand dollars? Although the buying and selling of organs is illegal on American soil, it’s no secret that the opportunity exists in other countries around the world. “In America, we have waiting list for people who are trying to get kidneys, there they have people who are on a wait list to sell their kidneys” (Gillespie). It’s quite incredible how a country cut off from western civilization, like Iran, has found such an innovative way to encourage organ donation. In American society one needs to “opt in” if they wish to participate in the
Organ donations are crucial for people in emergency situations. For years organ donations have saved the lives of millions. The problem with people needing organs is that there are not enough organs to be supplied to everyone who needs it. There are many people who die because they are not able to obtain lifesaving organs. The need for organs exceeds the supply given. Thus, leading me to ask this essential question, “Should organ donation be a part of the market?” To support this question I have prepared three supportive claims, but since my answer is no my reasons will revolve around this argument. First, I will state why I do not agree with such a thing, and then I will support my claim by stating why it is so bad, and to end my paper I will state what place(s) legalizes trade.
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 belief in equal medical care for every individual regardless of their ability to pay for the service is severely violated (Caplan, 2004).
When viewing organ donation from a moral standpoint we come across many different views depending on the ethical theory. The controversy lies between what is the underlying value and what act is right or wrong. Deciding what is best for both parties and acting out of virtue and not selfishness is another debatable belief. Viewing Kant and Utilitarianism theories we can determine what they would have thought on organ donation. Although it seems judicious, there are professionals who seek the attention to be famous and the first to accomplish something. Although we are responsible for ourselves and our children, the motives of a professional can seem genuine when we are in desperate times which in fact are the opposite. When faced with a decision about our or our children’s life and well being we may be a little naïve. The decisions the patients who were essentially guinea pigs for the first transplants and organ donation saw no other options since they were dying anyways. Although these doctors saw this as an opportunity to be the first one to do this and be famous they also helped further our medical technology. The debate is if they did it with all good ethical reasoning. Of course they had to do it on someone and preying upon the sick and dying was their only choice. Therefore we are responsible for our own health but when it is compromised the decisions we make can also be compromised.
In this paper I will be using the normative theory of utilitarianism as the best defensible approach to increase organ donations. Utilitarianism is a theory that seeks to increase the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (Pense2007, 61). The utilitarian theory is the best approach because it maximizes adult organ donations (which are the greater good) so that the number of lives saved would increase along with the quality of life, and also saves money and time.
In conclusion, although there are some valid reasons to support the creation of an organ market based on the principles of beneficence and autonomy, there are also many overriding reasons against the market. Allowing the existence of organ markets would theoretically increase the number of organ transplants by living donors, but the negative results that these organ markets will have on society are too grave. Thus, the usage of justice and nonmaleficence as guiding ethical principles precisely restricts the creation of the organ market as an ethical system.