Commercialization of Organ Transplant
Most parts of the world are experiencing donated organs’ shortage (Cherry, 2005). The explanation of this is the gap that is widening between the required organs and the donated organs. As such, this has increased the black markets in which the sale of human tissues and organs occurs. It is also due to this that fact the question about the use of tissues that are acquired after a post-mortem and their use in transplant arises. This also raised questions regarding human organs’ commercialization (Kanniyakonil, 2005). Different views regarding commercialization of organ’s transplant are presented in this paper. The paper also presents the view of the right actions regarding this practice.
Argument for the Commercialization
Proponents argue that humans are born in families and this makes them community resources. As such, human bodies ought to be seen as the resources of the community. Legalizing this practice will diffuse tension that family members hold about relatives after donating organs (Cherry, 2005). Therefore, people will be able to donate their organs without the feeling of being obliged to the demands of their relatives.
Additionally, proponents observe that this practice ought to be legalized but there should be strict restrictions. They claim that this differs from an illegal market for organs since the safety of the donor will be improved. There will also be an even distribution of organs (Kanniyakonil, 2005). This implies that in such arrangements, organs’ prices would be at the level of the annual salary on average. This way, donors will not just be the poor individuals but the rich as well.
Arguments against the Commercialization of Organ Sale
The argument of the opponents is that organs commercialization will motivate the poor to donate organs so that they can raise their standards of living (Kanniyakonil, 2005). This is against ethical standards since people should offer help to the needy as a kindness act. It can also cause exploitation where the rich entice poor people using their money and eventually the poor will donate organs to them.
According to the opponents of organs commercialization, children are highly vulnerable since they would be easily coerced into donating organs. There are parents who would have more children so that they can use them for commercial purposes. The argument of opponents is that this would be abusing moral standards that exist currently. These stipulate that incentives should not be offered to people so that they can sell organs (Cherry, 2005). There are cases when the sale would cause poor health or death of the donor. This would also degrade the values of the community. It would not be ethical and children’s rights would be abused. The conclusion of opponents is that donating organs ought to be a charitable act.
On the basis of these arguments, there are disadvantages and advantages of each side. However, ethical standards provide the most ideal solutions in regards to this subject. Commercializing this practice will make money the main incentive. People will abandon moral values that include good will and charity and they will offer organs for monetary value only (Kanniyakonil, 2005). The people who are less privileged in the society such as the mentally ill and children will also be abused for financial gains. This will be against ethical standards and exploitative.
The totality’s normative principle states that transplants can be justified only when the donor’s functional integrity is maintained (Kanniyakonil, 2005). The implication of virtue ethics is that the basis of the donor’s decision ought to be their character rather than general opinion. The implication of this is that selling an organ for economic position or value is moral (Kanniyakonil, 2005). It is also important to avoid exploitation by making sure that an informed donor’s consent exists. If there is no self-determined donor’s decision, then the benefactor is not respected by the decision makers. Children and mentally challenged individuals ought not to be used in such donations since they are incapable of making decisions on their own (Cherry, 2005). Charity virtue should be maintained and they should donate organs freely. There should be no obligation for people to do this.
In conclusion, organ commercialization ought not to be practiced since human organs ought not to be sold. People should not treat them they way they do with commodities since this is not acceptable on moral basis (Kanniyakonil, 2005). This violates human dignity. It also spoils altruism spirit. It is important for everybody to learn to help others as a value. Only the willing individuals should donate organs. This donation should also be done in a charitable manner of assisting the suffering individual (Cherry, 2005). The donor should make sure that they will not be at risk while healing. The implication of this is that they should be checked thoroughly to ensure that they are in good health.
The above essay was written by an expert at EssaysExperts.net. We offer quality and exceptional essay writing services to help you graduate with the desired result. Try our services and reap the benefits.
Cherry, M. J. (2005). Kidney for sale by owner: Human organs, transplantation, and the market. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press.
Kanniyakonil, S. (2005). Living organ donation and transplantation: A medical, legal, and moral theological appraisal. Kottayam: Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India.