Commercialization of Organ Transplants
Since organ transplants are an option that is considered a safe way that transfers organs from a living, or dead person, to a person in desperate need of an organ transplant. Because the demand for organ transplants outweighs the supply, there has been debate that questions medical ethics. Should organ donors be compensated? Review arguments for and against the sale of human organs. Make a decision that supports a position for, or against the sale of human organs. Defend your moral judgment with a moral argument. Describe the moral principle that you are appealing to in your moral judgment. Out of the possible normative theories, determine which one works with your conclusion.
Arguments for the Commercialization of Transplants
There are over an estimated 100,000 people that are awaiting an organ transplant. It is also estimated that 17 people die every day while waiting on the donor list. In addition the list for people awaiting for an organ transplant grows by about 115 people every day. In 2002 people waiting for a kidney transplant was around 13, 000. This type of organ can be donated by a deceased or living donor. There were only about 3000 kidneys donated that year. With people being compensated for the donation of an organ would provide an increase in the supply of organs (Kishhore, 2004)
Arguments against the Commercialization of Transplants
There are also arguments against the commercialization of transplants, some of these are, the fear that if donors are paid a premium for their organ donation. This would almost stop free donations. People that decide to give just to save a life. There is also a question that because people would be making a donation simply because they would be ...
... middle of paper ...
...if they try to consider what will happen if they take certain actions, they will continue to make mistakes. The only action that can be the right actions, is the action that tells you to live by the moral code. Your actions are wrong even if your conscience tell you that you are making the right choice. The only action that is the right choice is the action that is made by following the moral code. Moral code should determine what actions we take, not what bring the most happiness (Shaw, 2014).
Works Cited
Kishhore, R. (2004). Human organs, scarcities, and sale: morality revisited. Journal of Medical Ethics.
Shaw, W. H. (2014). Business Ethics 8TH Edition. Boston: Cengage Learning.
World Press. (2013, January 7). Retrieved from Human Rights ETC: http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/the-ethics-of-human-rights-68-the-case-against-the-sale-of-human-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.
According to Pozgar (2016), the demand for organs and tissues for use in transplantation far exceeds the available supply. This is largely due to the increasing success rate of organ transplantation. This disparity between the supply and demand for viable organs has created an ethical dilemma. Since, there are not enough organs to help everyone, it must be decided who will, in effect, live or die. Those charged with making those decisions attempt to use a set of guidelines to determine who the beneficiaries will be. However, when a decision results in the suffering and/or death of another, there are going to be ethical questions.
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
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
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.
...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.
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.
The selling of human organs for transplants is a highly debated topic in the healthcare industry today. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 prohibits compensating organ donors for their donations. Over 100,000 Americans have kidney or liver disease, and are in need of transplants to survive. The average waiting time for a kidney transplant, once on the list, is 4.5 years, while, liver disease is less common with a waiting time of 430 days. Nonetheless, the fact is that there are not enough organs donated annually to meet these high demands. By creating a regulated market for buying and selling human organs, it would increase the number of lives saved, help families with expenses, and greatly ease the anguish that many sick individuals endure while in hope of a transplant.
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).
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
A transplanted kidney can last a person their whole lifetime yet in the greatest country of the world, the government bans the selling of organs. This leads to thousands of citizens desperate to find a cure for themselves or a loved one. A solution to reduce our supply and demand gap would be to pay our donors. By paying our donors, this would increase the supply of kidneys tremendously. People living in extreme poverty are willing to put so much on the line for money. People in third world countries are accepting as little as $1,000 for a kidney just so they can supply their family with some food and necessities. This black market of organ trading needs to be stopped but we should not ask a patient to accept death easily. If organ sales did become legalized it would need to be highly regulated. Some people in less fortunate countries are only left to sell their organs on the black market. Why not build a regulated system that compensates people fairly and provides them with safety? As unpleasant as it seems to commodify organs, the current situation is simply too tragic not to change something. If coordinated properly, it could simultaneously satisfy the needs of wealthy countries with long waiting lists and poorer countries with overwhelming poverty. In the 1990s, after years of war and economic slumps, the country, Iran decided to compensate donors by paying them for
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.
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.
The Importance of Organ Donation Each day approximately 6,300 people die and what makes this haunting is that presently there are 83,513 people waiting for organs to be donated, yet each day 17 people die because they do not receive a transplant (http://www.donatelife.net/facts_stats.html). These statistics show that people who are waiting for organ transplants have a good chance at being saved and get what they need. The sad truth is though, because of the lack of people willing to donate organs, many people will continue to wait for organs to save their lives. ? Waiting lists of patients for organ transplants become longer as the need for transplantable organs increases? (Sheehy 1).
Each day, 120 people are added to the ever-growing organ waiting list. An astonishing 41% of these unfortunate people, that's about 50, will die due to the lack of donor organs in ... ... middle of paper ... ... nd of donor organs.