Commercialization of Organ Transplants
Medical specialists across the globe have raised a concern over the alarming shortage of human organs for transplant. They have thus suggested commercialization of human cells, tissues, and other organs to be considered as an essentialbiotechnological solution. The views of these scientists have proliferated both legal and ethical debates that deal with the transplant of human organs owing to the strong intuitions and beliefs on bioethics and its implications especially with regard to the commercialization of organ transplant to individuals and the society at large. Such intuitions regarding commercializing organ transplant originate from the moral, cultural, and economic viewpoints (Kurnit et al, 1994, p. 420)
Pro: Commercialization of Organ Transplants
To save the tyranny of patients and medics who are desperately pursuing the commercialization of these human organs, several beneficial units and boundaries have been taken up to make sure that they work within relatively reasonable boundaries.The first successful transplant of human organs of individuals who were not blood relatives was conducted in 1962 and since then, the demand for such magical operations has risen to exceed its supply. Today, it seems that numerous human organs are being traded commercially within the global markets and as research suggests that cloning may become the ultimate alternative for this controversial practice. It is believed that promptly commercializing the human organ transplant process will automatically trigger an accelerated supply of this overburdening demand of these organs by a rapidly increasing number of patients (Gorsline et al, 1995, pp.32).
In the U.S. the legislation and courts have actually legalized the renewal of several body parts including the blood and skin and this has led to commercialization of the body organs. Many donors have thus been lured by the thought of making money to consciously donate their body parts. In some instances, the medics usually seek the consent of deceased individuals to permit the usage of the organs from their dead ones and this has become quite a common thing in donation of blood, sperm, born marrow organs. This activity is actually backed by the code of health and disability rights which clearly spells out that every consumer has a reasonable right to receive returns after disposing of their body substances that are eliminated during a surgical procedure (Radhika, 2000, pp. 360).
The scientists continue to support the commercialization of these body organs so as to enable them maintain medical research services that interest them. They argue that by restraining the commercialization process they will be automatically denied the chance to progress with their scientific research and medical advances. Therefore, to them it is pertinent to ignore other negative implications of the commercialization of the human organs, and for all persons to embrace and accept the practice as a societal norm (Gorsline et al, 1995, pp.32).
Con: Commercialization of Organ Transplants
Thedebate on commercialization of human organs is a concept that has raised controversial issues, some of which are perceptions of human ethical understanding. This has resulted in the rejection of the idea by several focus groups especially because of the numerous negatively perceived answers that are usually elicited by these reports. One of the key arguments is that commercialization is likened to the permission of treating body organs as an imagery of machines, which are replaceable, and posses the necessary spare parts to turn humans into creators. This focus on mechanistic functionality and performance is also in line with the perception of the body as a commodity and deviate from God’s intention of creation (Kurnit et al, 1994, p. 424)
When a person dies, his physical body presence gives its central sense of living hence the laws that enforce the use of the dead body organs are seen to be acting against the wishes of the dead with regard to their body properties. In his research, Sir Edward termed the dead bodies’ burial as nullius in bunis, meaning they do not have any property rights, and this law has been adopted and used many times for decades to mislead the general rule of protecting the bodies of the dead. To date, this rule has been amended many times in order to provide the rights and respect to the dead, hence the use of their organs cannot be allowed to be commercialized by the third parties without theirconsent (Radhika, 2000, pp. 360).
Critical analysis also indicates that legalizing the commercialization of human organ transplant will give rise to some unethical entrepreneurs whose main interest will be to exploit poor people especially in the other parts of the world like the developing countries. This may complicate and strain inter-relations and repress the economic growth of such misused countries. Such unscrupulous entrepreneurs are also perceived to have strong intentions and going to the extent of involving themselves in criminal attacks of killing people to get their organs for the sake of financial gain. This may ultimately lead to extortion of the vulnerable patients and their loved ones who may be in desperate need for the organ transplant (Gorsline et al, 1995, pp.32).
Organ transplants have in some cases failed to conjoin to the recipient hence posing various health threats to both the donor and the recipient. These cases have been witnesses in many transplants of kidney, heart, and liver between unrelated persons. It is thus perceived to have negative effects on both the donor and recipient’s health as well as economic progress. Research also indicates that there is a tendency of enhancing disparity by using the commercialized organs on the basis of the race factor particularly in multiracial countries (Kurnit et al, 1994, p. 426).
In conclusion, the physiological and ethical stance with regard to this motion purely depends on every person’s life beliefs and intuitions. The plurality underlying of its practice in connection to the ethical, cultural, and social norm necessitate an informed approach and liberal comprehension.
Gorsline, Monique and Johnson, Rachelle L. (1995). “The United States System of Organ
Donation,The International Solution and the Cadaver Organ Donor Act: “And
theWinneris…” 20Journal ofCorporation Law5, 32.
Kurnit, Melissa N. (1994) “Organ Donation in the United States: Can we learn from
successesabroad?17 Boston College International and Comparative Law
Review. Pp. 405-427.
Radhika Rao (2000) “Property Privacy and the Human Body” 80Boston University Law Review