More handpicked essays just for you.
Societal and ethical issues relating to transplantation
Moral issues of organ transplants
Explaining argumentative essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Risk for exploitation of marginalized populations
The biggest fear concerning if selling organs should be legalized is that poor or otherwise marginalized populations would be taken advantage of. As there is a high demand for organs and a low supply there will be large incentives for poor populations to sell their organs. Inequality when it comes to gender and race is also a factor worth considering, especially when it comes to altruistic donation. In Schweda and Schicktanz’s study, the German participants speak of living donors having to go through an obligatory psychological evaluation and in this financial pressure could be compared to for example family pressure when it comes to limiting the freedom of decision (Schweda and Schicktanz, 2009:5). These two factors are the most troubling aspects of living donation as they impede individual autonomy.
Family and gender
Even when the donor is an adult it is often not easy to freely make decisions regarding donation to a family member. Often the elders make decisions for the younger, men for the women and the individual is down prioritized for the good of the collective. In these cases, individual
…show more content…
autonomy is not present (Ikels, 2013:95). The feeling that organ donation is something that family members are expected to do is widespread. Interestingly, internationally women are more likely to donate to either their spouse or their child while men fail to do so. In Iran there exist a government regulated paid donation system; there women are the primary paid donors and men the primary receivers of those purchased organs. This is probably due to the social and family pressures exerted on women in often male dominated societies. The females have lower status and the tendency to choose the “least valuable” family member seems frequent. Some have put forward the argument that organ selling would protect these women from being persuaded to serve as altruistic family donors (Scheper-Hughes, 2007:508). Gender inequality is an issue in society as a whole and as long as males dominate some societies women will be taken advantage of as they don’t have true individual autonomy. Economy Transplant tourism is a problem that has been highly visible in the debate regarding organ transfer. Financial pressure is a huge risk when it comes to organ selling as poor populations may feel pressured to donate their organs to contribute to the family’s survival. In Banong Lupa, Manila, Scheper-Hughes found that kidney selling had become a routine to provide basic necessities and that it was perceived as a demonstration of how long a male head was prepared to go to protect his family. Also, kidney selling among adolescents resembled a rite of passage that demonstrated family loyalty. (Scheper-Hughes, 2007:509) In this case, a mixture between financial and family pressure made men sell their kidneys. Structural forces in the form of socioeconomic issues make way for exploitation of marginalized people. Anthropologist who study the current illegal market argues that legalizing it would bring the same type of problems that exist on the illegal one: an evident inequality where the rich take advantage of the poor, those from developed countries benefit at the expense of those from developing ones, and men often exploit women. (Ikels, 2013:98) A way to find a middle way between an open market and gift-giving is the practice of “rewarded gifting”, “donation with incentive” or a “death benefit”. These are ways to motivate donations within what is considered socially acceptable incentives (Joralemon, 1995:346). Joralemon compares cultural acceptance of organ transfer with the body’s physiological acceptance of a foreign organ, and suggests that a combined therapy of both gift and market ideologies might be the most successful approach to suppress aversion to the fragmentation of human bodies for their organs (Joralemon, 1995:348). This might protect some people from being exploited but it is a small step towards an organ market. Conclusion Dehumanization of the donors is troubling mainly because it risks treating humans unfairly and inhuman.
Especially the commercialization of organs is problematic as with it comes behaviors that take advantage of less fortunate people. A problem is that no matter what is done, the high demand for organs will still exist. If wait-lists are examined and people not meeting the eligibility requirements are removed nothing is stopping these people from seeking organs from vulnerable populations. This is a problem based in the complex notions of the human body and personhood. Dehumanization is a way to suppress feelings regarding the process of organ transfer and make an organ market. The dehumanization of donors and their bodies is a complex problem with roots in the value giving of todays society and the general
objectification. It would be of further interest to do a deep cross-cultural comparison how different cultures and different religions view the body and in particular organ transfer as this paper has mainly focused on studies performed in Western countries. Also the view on brain death as a sign of “complete death” is not something that has been discussed much in this paper and it might be relevant to relate the view on brain death to the approach to organ transfer.
“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
In his article “Opt-out organ donation without presumptions”, Ben Saunders is writing to defend an opt-out organ donation system in which cadaveric organs can be used except in the case that the deceased person has registered an objection and has opted-out of organ donation. Saunders provides many arguments to defend his stance and to support his conclusion. This paper will discuss the premises and elements of Saunders’ argument and how these premises support his conclusion. Furthermore, this paper will discuss the effectiveness of Saunders’ argument, including its strengths and weaknesses. Lastly, it will discuss how someone with an opposing view might respond to his article,
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
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.
In her article, Satel criticizes the current methods governing organ sharing in the United States, and suggests that the government should encourage organ donation, whether it was by providing financial incentives or other compensatory means to the public. Furthermore, the author briefly suggests that the European “presumed consent” system for organ donation might remedy this shortage of organs if implicated in the States.
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
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.
...e identifies the need for improvement not in the distribution of the organs available for transplant, but in the education of policy and regulating agencies on diversity, multiculturalism and ethics that need to be applied prior to approaching the general public and asking them to become organ donors for the good of everyone.
Organ donation is a key role in saving thousands of American lives. Without donation hundreds of people would die from improperly functioning or failing organs not strong enough to keep them alive. Organ donation is the process of giving an organ or a part of an organ for the purpose of transplantation into another person. Organs can be donated from both living and deceased donors, and can be donated from all ages. Unfortunately not all Americans are aware of organ donation and out of the ones that are, several are uncomfortable with donating for several reasons. This is causing organ shortages not just in the US, but all over the world. These shortages have led to the voluntary selling of one’s own organs, otherwise known as Organ Trafficking.
Today, 120,000 people are waiting for organ transplants in the United States. On average eighteen of these people die every day because they did not get the organ donation because of an absence of available organs for transplant. There is a large and increasing shortage of organs for transplant patients not only in America but in the whole world. Currently, the only organs that a transplant patient can legally receive are from cadavers or living relatives. This leaves patients with a very small chance of getting the help they need if they do not have a living relative with a compatible organ. If there were a free market for organs, it is believed by many experts that up to half of these patients would be able to get the transplants they need, at a lower medical cost (Adams, Barnett, Kaserman). The heightened medical costs, anguish of waiting, and thousands of needlessly lost lives could all be remedied by a free market for human organs.
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.
A human is born completely as he must end his life completely. No one on earth can buy a life. But people are buying part of a human life causing people to live with a body that’s not completed. In general, many people in the modern world are unwilling to legalize the sale of human organs even if it was a part of a dead human body (Mill, 2009). Also, selling organs is mostly against the moral values to some religions like Islam. However, in the modern world the increase of organ transplants is affected by the shortage of supply of the organs.
...nts will die before a suitable organ becomes available. Numerous others will experience declining health, reduced quality of life, job loss, lower incomes, and depression while waiting, sometimes years, for the needed organs. And still other patients will never be placed on official waiting lists under the existing shortage conditions, because physical or behavioral traits make them relatively poor candidates for transplantation. Were it not for the shortage, however, many of these patients would be considered acceptable candidates for transplantation. The ban of organ trade is a failed policy costing thousands of lives each year in addition to unnecessary suffering and financial loss. Overall, there are more advantages than disadvantages to legalizing the sale of organs. The lives that would be saved by legalizing the sale of organs outweighs any of the negatives.