Lawrence Cohen is a professor in UC Berkeley whose studies revolve around medical and sociocultural anthropology. Cohen’s primary research is about medicine, health, and the body He authored the article, "Where It Hurts: Indian Material for an Ethics of Organ Transplantation”. The setting of his article occurred in India, more specifically the poor housing projects like Chennai. The introduction states the author’s intentions of diving in the organ black market in India and the bioethics it surrounds. Cohen makes a fulfilling analysis of how debt is in relationship with the idea of giving organs in exchange for money. He uses citations in order to support his claims about the ethics behind organ donations.
What is it about, empirically?
The location of the article is situated on the poor area of India like Chennai. These poverty stricken areas are well known for the sale of organs, more often than not, kidneys in exchange for cash. The topic Cohen explores is in a national scale, considering that India is being known for the black market in organs. Many question the ethics behind these issues; there are doctors and medical officials that are against it, while there are some that supports these transactions. What Cohen tries to dissect throughout the text is the unethical lack of information the poor receives before selling their organs to the rich. The time of study for Cohen’s article was before fall 1999, since that was the time of publish.
What is the main argument and goal of the writing?
Cohen explores the underground market of organ transaction, usually between the poor and someone that is well off in India. He brings up the concept of “life for life” where for the poor everything is at stake, the moment they cut their ...
... middle of paper ...
...as shifted a majority of our culture’s perspective in the idea of giving someone an organ. This shift is intertwined with the concept of debt because it is the driving force to sell their organ. In addition, the poor in any parts of the world from India to Santiago, Chile, debt has became the cycle they try to escape but can’t because of the circumstances against them. These ideas lead me to ask, through what ways has debt around the globe shape their culture?
Two open-ended questions
1) In what ways do the action of individuals in India who sell their organ try to answer Erick Graeber’s open question of, “Do debts need to be repaid back?”
2) When an organ donor sells their kidney to the market, to what extent does the person receiving that kidney make him or her equal in relationship, will that in some ways make them in debt with each other just for that moment?
Through the entire essay she gives reasons and counterarguments of selling organs. At the very beginning of the paper, she clearly states her outlook, which is “Governments should not ban the sales o...
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
Naomi Nye was born to a German-American mother and a Palestinian-American father. However, she normally writes from her Palestinian-Arab perspective. In several of her poems within The Heath Anthology—“Ducks,” “My Father and the Figtree,” and “Where the Soft Air Lives”—Naomi Nye reminisces about her Muslim heritage and childhood as it correlates to her present identity. In addition, she incorporates the effect of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on herself and on Arab culture in her work. Ultimately, Naomi Nye’s poetic work should remain in The Heath Anthology as her style demonstrates how historical events and a deep-rooted heritage can enrich a sense of identity and culture.
It is said that “Some agree with Pope John Paul II that the selling of organs is morally wrong and violates “the dignity of the human person” (qtd. In Finkel 26), but this is a belief professed by healthy and affluent individuals” (158). MacKay is using ethos the show the morality of those that believe it is wrong for organ sales. The morals shown are those of people who have yet to experience a situation of needing a new organ. Having a healthy and wealthy lifestyle, they cannot relate to those that have trouble with money and a unhealthy lifestyle as the poor. The poor and the middle class are the ones that suffer being last on the list for a transplant, thus have different ethics. Paying an absurd amount of money and still having to be at the bottom of the list for a transplant, is something no person anywhere in the world should have to
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.
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)
A pittance for your kidney? It’s highly unlikely that anyone would answer yes to that question; however what if someone offered significantly more than a pittance? A thousand dollars, or perhaps even five thousand dollars? Although the buying and selling of organs is illegal on American soil, it’s no secret that the opportunity exists in other countries around the world. “In America, we have waiting list for people who are trying to get kidneys, there they have people who are on a wait list to sell their kidneys” (Gillespie). It’s quite incredible how a country cut off from western civilization, like Iran, has found such an innovative way to encourage organ donation. In American society one needs to “opt in” if they wish to participate in the
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).
“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.
Ultimately, Organ donation is ethical because of the shortage of lifesaving organs, promotes giving something back to the community, and the best of all it’s a gift of life. Organ donation is considerably necessary in need to be addressed to make a difference in peoples ' lives around the world. The breakthrough in the demand of organ donation is greatly needed to guarantee individuals to save the lives or progress in receiving the benefit of organ transplant (Hyde, Wihardjo, & White, 2012). Most people don’t realize were organ transplants come from and how important organ donations means to a person in need. The fact of the matter is that organs are useless once we have passed away, to make an enormous impact on others around us we have to take that step and become an organ donor. Most individuals have nothing to lose but to gain a life by being an organ donor. Miller (1987) concludes that the answer to the crucial deficiency of donor organ is the cooperation of expressing society in the community. As well as, the effort of instructive information that clarifies both patient and medical profession to take action and prepare the way for future donors to take place in the cycle of life by renewing the organs. Therefore, it is necessary to look beyond all myths that are implemented in today’s society, organ donation is very much imperative in today’s
The uncontainable despair of the weeping and screaming parents entering a room full of body bags containing the altered remains of their children. In a room drained with blood and surrounding fridges for the maintenance of the ejected organs, everything seems miserably surreal(“Children Kidnapped for Their Organs”). This is only one of the discovered cases of the daily dozens of people killed for organ harvestation. Adding up to ten thousand illegal operations in 2012 which translates to hourly sales (Samadi). These abhorrent acts add up as crimes against humanity which are triggered by a numerous amount of reasons; in order to stop these constant atrocities we must uncover the root of the causes.
In the United States, there are over one hundred thousand people on the waiting list to receive a life-saving organ donation, yet only one out of four will ever receive that precious gift (Statistics & Facts, n.d.). The demand for organ donation has consistently exceeded supply, and the gap between the number of recipients on the waiting list and the number of donors has increased by 110% in the last ten years (O'Reilly, 2009). As a result, some propose radical new ideas to meet these demands, including the selling of human organs. Financial compensation for organs, which is illegal in the United States, is considered repugnant to many. The solution to this ethical dilemma isn’t found in a wallet; there are other alternatives available to increase the number of donated organs which would be morally and ethically acceptable.
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 ...