Legalizing The Sale of Organs
What if I told you that you could save a life, AND make money doing so. Well, with the legalization of organ sales you could do just that! Anthony Gregory’s 2011 article “Why Legalizing Organ Sale Would Help Save Lives, End Violence” which was published in The Atlantic takes a stance which is opposite to the current outdated traditional system. A system which manifests the numerous issues that has led to thousands of deaths to those stuck on the waiting list. Gregory as the article’s title suggests believes that the legalization of organ sales would fix the current issues in the organ transplant system. Anthony Gregory a Cal Berkeley educated, self described anarcho-libertarian offers a polarizing solution
…show more content…
He backs up his claim that the legalization of organ sales would end the violence within the current system with two outstanding claims. The first of which is comparing the prohibition of organ sales to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920’s. He cites that it was not the alcohol that caused crime during that period of time, but more so that illegality of the liquid. “Pushing the market underground is the way to make it rife with violence and criminality” (Gregory 3). Government official agree with this stance as well, Virginia government official Rosenbaum states that the current market encourages the use of a middle man, which is often link to crime (Schachter 1). When the prohibition was lifted the vast majority of crimes linked to the sale of alcohol went down, thus, it is not farfetched to think the legalization of organ sales would have a similar reaction. The current market does not only encourage, but reward criminality by giving organ dealers high profits for their illegal sales, and exploits those who are selling their organs. Often by force, and or for very little financial compensation, not to mention the lack of proper transplants done by poor surgeons. The free market system is also supported by doctors in the field. Doctor Nedley Hakin a leading organ transplant doctor state that the current system encourages a dangerous unregulated black market system. In return, it open up those …show more content…
Thus, allowing the organs to be given to those in need, on a need first basis rather than being based on wealth. Ideally in Gregory’s proposed concept, the large compensation that donors would receive would lend to a large group of individuals to come forth as donors. Thus satisfying the market’s demands. This may seem like a far fetched utopian like best case scenario at first, but as Gregory stated in his piece an regulated open market system is already in place in the country of Iran. The country’s legalization led to the ending of the waiting list, and put an end to the deaths of those who could not receive a transplant in time (Schachter). Just as doctors supported Anthony’ Gregory’s stance that a change would end the black market, doctors also agree that it would put an end to the waiting list. Benjamin Hippen an MD in North Carolina also sees Iran as a model for the regulated market system, on how the laws should be constructed in order to fix the current issues of the organ transplant system, and properly installed a new one.
“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
However, Saunders begins his argument by arguing that the current opt-in system leads to a shortage in the supply of organs and this is a major concern. This results in numerous people who need organs dying while on waiting lists and also suffering while waiting for transplant as one of their organs is failing. This is Saunders’ first premise to support his conclusion to put an opt-out system in place. By putting an opt-out system in place, this will contribute to an increase in the supply of organs.
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
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.
At the beginning of her argument, Satel claims that the current transplant list systems are ineffective, and are causing a shortage of organs availability, thereby allowing countless patients to suffer. At first, she makes an invali...
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.
It is clear that a large demand for organs exists. People in need of organ donations are transferred to an orderly list. Ordinarily, U.S. institutions have an unprofitable system which provides organs through a list of individuals with the highest needs; however, these organs may never come. A list is
It’s important to realize that many Americans believe organ donation should simply be just that, a donation to someone in need. However, with the working class making up roughly 60% of society it’s extremely unlikely that a citizen could financially support themselves during and after aiding someone in a lifesaving organ transplant. The alarming consequence, says bioethicist Sigrid Fry-Revere, is that people waiting for kidneys account for 84 percent of the waiting list. To put it another way Tabarrok explains, “In the U.S. alone 83,000 people wait on the official kidney-transplant list. But just 16,500 people received a kidney transplant in 2008, while almost 5,000 died waiting for one” (607). Those numbers are astronomical. When the current “opt-in” policy is failing to solve the organ shortage, there is no reason compensation should be frowned upon. By shifting society’s current definition regarding the morality of organ donation, society will no longer see compensation for organs as distasteful. Citizens will not have to live in fear of their friends and family dying awaiting an organ transplant procedure. A policy implementing compensation would result in the ability for individuals to approach the issue with the mindset that they are helping others and themselves. The government currently regulates a variety of programs that are meant to keep equality and fairness across the
...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.
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.
Despite an increased rate in organ transplantation from living donors, the supply and demand of recipients and donors still has not met. In an effort to further encourage and increase the number of organs available for transplant by living donors, the contemplation of an organ market has been brought up into attention (Tong, 2007). While the idea of an organ market system would theoretically improve the number of living organ ...
... will check to avoid all the risks that might occur. And according to professor Nadey Hakim, he believes that there should be a market for the organs instead of the black market (Smith, 2011). This idea will be lowering the problems of the black market or might even destroy the black market. It will be saving many lives and people will know were to go to get an organ they need that is safe without any consequences.
...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.