Who Owns Your Body Parts - Literature review Example

Journal The article under consideration is d “Who Owns Your Body Parts? Everyone’s Making Money in the Market forTissue – Except the Donors” and was written by Kerry Howley, a senior editor at Defunct magazine, who raises awareness of the need to regulate the process of tissue procurement. The author starts with demonstrating that the number of recent sensational cases of illegal body tissue selling raises the need to reexamine the way tissue procurement is conducted nowadays. According to Howley, the development of the market makes human bodies merely commodities, which although saves and improves lives of others, bypasses the law that prohibits selling organs and tissues for the sake of business interest. Importantly, Tissue selling business remains obscured and shady as far as it mostly keeps donors and family members unaware of the monetary gaining which organizations are planning to win, but applies a variety of efforts to encourage people to donate. Subsequently, the author puts forward an argument that the current tissue procurement is in dire need of strict regulations, such as strong regulative acts, stringer requirements, and much higher barriers for brokers. Lots of agencies make the process chaotic and difficult to take under control while one and functioning accordingly to the norms, agency for an area could make a difference. 2. “Donors Have No Rights to Donated Tissue” is an article written by a senior associate for the Council of Ethical and Judicial Affairs for the AMA in Chicago Kristen Schleider in which she informs readers about the current legal state of donated tissues. The article gives an account of several recent cases that were brought to an action with the aim of restoring ownership rights to the tissues that were voluntary donated for research. The demands of patients-plaintiffs were to recognize their right to take part in decision making regarding their samples as well as their relation to the products of research. In two cases the root of the conflict was the fact that researchers used the donated tissues to originate profitable inventions and left donors aside of the earnings. The following reflects the current legal state of donated tissues. As it is explained, donors have no rights after they agreed to participate and signed an informed consent, so organizations can use materials at personal discretion, striving for commercial success. 3. In his “The Trouble with Organ Trafficking” Arthur Caplan, the Emanuel and Robert Hart Professor of Bioethics and the director of the Center for Bioethics of the University of Pennsylvania, constructs an argument against legalization of the organ market. Caplan introduces the topic by stating the scope of the problem of illegal organ trafficking, which has spread all over the world with the well-off people searching for donors in developing countries. As a result, some tend to believe that the legalization of organ markets would be the step towards eradicating illegal practices that treat donors and potential patients. However, as the author continues, the following cannot make the case due to several reasons. Among them is the potential inability to establish proper control over organ market sector. Also, it will put the poor into extremely unfavorable position as far as they would consider selling an organ as last instance of supporting a family. In addition, legalization of the organ market would violate the very basics of medical ethics which dictates not to harm but act for the sake of beneficence of a patient. Another point, in this regard, is that legalization would bring under question efforts of medical workers which they applied or could apply to save the life of a patient, suspecting them of monetary interest. Therefore, keeping it illegal is the only ethical decision, according to Caplan. 4. The argument for the legalization of organs market is presented by a practicing psychiatrists and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Sally Satel in her 2008 article “Why We Need a Market for Human Organs.” The main position of the author is that there is a shortage of people who would agree to give their organs as gift for those who are in need. However, the demand is considerable and it encourages illegal markets to develop and prosper. Satel shares that there is a tendency in the world to prevent selling of organs, but this touches upon legal means of buying while illicit ones continue moving underground. Subsequently, for the sake of promoting appropriate care, respect, safety for donors and patients organs market should be legalized. What is needed is to ensure proper treatment of donors, their thorough medical evaluation, and provision of valuable benefits, apart from a single monetary compensation. 5. The article to be summarized is titled “The Gender Language of Gamete “Donation”” and it was written by Caroline Rubin, a graduate of MIT and a receiver of Kampf prize on Women’s and gender studies, who examines the gendered discourse of gamete donation, used both to encourage and justify the procedure. Rubin makes an insight into the topic by analyzing advertisements of gamete donation, focusing on the differences in language and imagery between those created for female and male donors. According to the author, in contrast to the ads for men, which are associated with earning and material benefits, ads for women are more subtle because they picture donation as an act of philanthropy. The following difference can be associated with the traditional distinction of gender roles in which men are breadwinners and the scope of their interests goes beyond family matters while the role of a woman is tied to motherhood and family. However, both female and male gametes donation presupposes similar commercial interest, so the specific language of ads is used in order to veil commodification of human tissue and make the procedure more morally and ethically acceptable by the society. Response: The given articles made a good impression on me and I liked both the information itself and the way it is presented. To start with, in my opinion, authors discuss the issue which is of the great importance today. With the further enhancement of knowledge in the field of medicine and subsequent development of surgical techniques, it is likely that the rate of successful transplantations would only increase. So will the rate of prevalence does. However, tissue and organs procurement still encourages many opposite opinions and dilemmas as well as causes many problems, such as illicit markets, lack of proper control over commercial organizations, lack of definite legalization. Subsequently, it is essential to raise public awareness of the issue and facilitate the process of finding the right answers to the existing questions. In this context, the five articles can be the good start to widen knowledge of the subject under consideration. All unveil a particular side of a topic, contain interesting information and unique view of authors on the raised issue. The reference to the recent cases makes arguments more comprehensive and increases overall awareness of the current views and problems of the procedure of tissue donation. As a whole, I think that everyone would find a fruit for thought while reading these articles. As form me, I realized that it is difficult to formulate a resolute opinion on the topic of legalization of tissue and organs marker donation since it touches upon too many ethical and moral dilemmas. From one side, I agree with authors that legalization of organ and tissue markets can put the poor into unfavorable position as well as lead to exploitation of people, viewing them as commodities. However, as it is seen from Howley’s and Caplan’s articles, some enterprising people already earn money from selling human parts as objects. Moreover, the current illegal status allowed numerous violations that made businessmen richer, but could cause significant harm to donors. As a result, it is possible to assume that legalization could change the situation. Thereof, the articles encouraged me to learn more about another side of the dilemma of the tissue and organ legalization in order to have more versatile and deep understanding of all pros and cons. In any case, the articles are interesting and engaging: each tells its own story that complements the other and adds to the overall picture of the current state of the tissue market in the country and world. Works cited Caplan, Arthur. “The Trouble with Organ Trafficking” Kennedy, and Kennedy 307-309 Howley, Kerry. "Who Owns Your Body Parts? Everyone’s Making Money in the Market for Tissue – Except the Donors." Kennedy, and Kennedy 290-302. Kennedy, MaryLynch, and William Kennedy. .” Writing in the Disciplines: A Reader and Rhetoric for Academic Writers. 7. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, 2012. Print. Rubin, Caroline. “The Gender Language of Gamete “Donation”” Kennedy, and Kennedy 313-318 Schleider, Kristen. “Donors Have No Rights to Donated Tissue” Kennedy, and Kennedy 302-306. Satel, Sally. “Why We Need a Market for Human Organs.” Kennedy, and Kennedy 310-312 Read More