1 Introduction
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.
2 Arguments against kidney sales
2.1 Exploitation of the poor
Critics of kidney sales argue that impoverished people are more likely to sell their organs than the rich. (Matas, 2004) They claim that the practice of kidney sales is injustice since vulnerable vendors are targeted and that they may suffer from lengthy health problems after the operations which may eventually lead to the loss of jobs. (Bramstedt, 2010)
2.2 Commodification of human organs
The second argument against kidney sale...
... middle of paper ...
..., B. (2008). Organ trafficking: A time for action. Kidney International , 74, 839-840.
Svenaeus, F. (2010). The body as a gift, resource or commodity? Heidegger and the ethics of organ transplantation. Bioethical Inquiry , 7, 163-172.
Taylor, J. S. (2009). Autonomy and organ sales, revisited. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy , 34, 632-648.
Turner, L. (2009). Commercial organ transplantation in the Phillippines. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , 18, 192-196.
Weitz, J., Koch, M., Mehrabi, A., Schemmer, P., Zeier, M., Beimler, J., … Schmidt, J. (2006). Living-donar kidney transplantation: Risks of the donor- benefits of the recipient. Clinical Transplantation , 20 (17), 13-16.
Wolfe, R., Merion, R., Roys, E., & Port, F. (2009). Trends in Organ Donation and Transplantation in the United States, 1998-2007. American Journal of Transplantation , 9, 869-878.
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,
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
Gregory exposes and informs the audience that there are thousands of people that are dying and suffering as a result of not being able to receive transplants. Persuasively, Gregory is pushing and convincing readers to open their eyes and agree that there should be a legal market in organ selling and that people should be compensated for their donation. The author approaches counterarguments such as the market will not be fair and the differences between a liberalist’s and conservative’s views on organ selling. Liberal claims like “my body, my choice” and the Conservative view of favoring free markets are what is causing controversy to occur. Gregory suggests that these studies “show that this has become a matter of life and death” (p 452, para 12). Overall, Anthony Gregory makes great claims and is successful in defending them. He concludes with “Once again, humanitarianism is best served by the respect for civil liberty, and yet we are deprived both… just to maintain the pretense of state-enforced propriety” (p 453, para 15). In summary, people are deprived of both humanitarianism and civil liberty all because of the false claim of state-enforced behaviors considered to be appropriate or correct. As a result, lives are lost and human welfare is at
Imagine being told that your kidney does not function anymore, and having to wait an average of ten years of waiting for a transplant, and yet being afraid of dealing with the black market for a new organ. Joanna Mackay believes that these lives lost every day can be saved, as said in her essay “Organs Sales Will Save Lives”. MacKay’s purpose is to decriminalize organs sales. The rhetorical strategies used by MacKay are ethos, logos and pathos. These 3 strategies are used to persuade the audience of the benefits that may come to both the donor and the patient if decriminalized.
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.
6. Rothman, D. 1996. "Bodily Integrity and the Socially Disadvantaged: The traffic in Organs for Transplantation." In Organ and Tissue Donation; Ethical, legal, and policy issues. Speilman, B. (ed.).
The issue brought before us today is whether the commercialization of organ transplants is both ethical and beneficial to the economy and populace as a whole. There are many issues which are centered on this decision on which I hope to shed some light and allow for better resolutions to be made. In nearly every country in the world, there is a shortage of kidneys for transplantation. According to Corydon Ireland, in the United States 73,000 people are on waiting lists to receive a kidney. About 4,000 can pass away every year before receive a lifesaving organ. (Corydon Ireland, Harvard News Office. February 14, 2008) Some of the benefits of organ commercialization are increased revenues and jobs, as it would open a whole new arena of business, more widely available organs to those in need, and a wider method by which under-performing citizens can create temporary cash flow. There are many arguments against the allowance of organ commercialization, they include the fact that many consider it unethical to sell body parts, concern over the safety of these procedures, and doubt as to how those who donate will be treated medically post-sale. The final, separate issue which would need to be addressed is how health insurance companies are to handle those who sell organs and any post-op health issues that relate to the sale.
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).
Can you imagine your little child needs a kidney transplant? If child gets it in time, he will live a long, happy life. Without it, your child has a short time period to live. You signed up for kidney donor waiting list; time is ticking, time is running out, you do not believe it, but it is a long line, no donor was found; at the end you are lost your child…Unfortunately, this saddest end is really common in our life.
“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
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.
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
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.
Iran, which has the world’s only regulated system for compensating a kidney donor, has practically eliminated the wait for kidney donation. While Iran’s numbers seem promising when compared to the wait list in the United States, their numbers are still questionable. First, Iran has an authoritarian government, which is widely distrusted in the global community; therefore, many do not trust the accuracy of the numbers which they report. Additionally, Iran has not produced any long-term follow-up information about the donors and the recipients. Despite the reported $3,500 - $5,700 that living donors received, seventy-nine percent of donors could not afford follow-up care. In addition, Dr. J. Richard Thistlethwaite, a transplant surgeon at the University of Chicago, states that “The stigma associated with selling your organs was so strong that 98% did not want to be identified as organ donors” (Stevens...
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 ...