Ethical Debate for Buying Organs for Transplant - Research Paper Example

? Ethical debate for buying organs for transplant Introduction The organ trade business is booming all over the world and it will only stop when the fundamental organ shortage disappears. The organ sale business is done secretly because it has be declared illegal in many countries with some claiming that most people in developing and underdeveloped countries are the major stakeholders in the business. Commercial organ trade evolves from being an organ market to market in people whereby – secretly and publicly – the poor and vulnerable people are exploited. Some people suggest that rich people and nations take advantage of poor people and exploit them in the business. Some assert that some of the people who engage in this business are those in the low end of the scale of income. Some organizational policies prohibit buying and selling of organs for transplant while others support it. Similarly, there are various ethical arguments connected to the debated. This discussion will discuss some of the ethical arguments in the organ trade debate. Discussion Given the controversial arguments projected concerning sale of organs, it is quite hard to debate the concern rationally because the idea of selling and buying a person’s sounds totally suicidal and unbelievable. Irrespective of the controversy and heated debates surrounding the issue, many people’s view of unexplainable world organs inadequacy and the prolonged waiting lists of patients for transplants, shows that organ trade is the final solution to this issue. There are various crucial arguments provided for legalizing organs sale. For instance, critics argue that peoples organs belong to themselves and donors should be free to use their organs whichever way they wish, (Fabre, 2006). Therefore, it is the right of the donor to decide how they wish to use their organs and whom they wish to donate to and for what purpose or gain. Additionally, there is an increased shortage of organs for transplant in many healthcare centers in that crucial radical remedies for obtaining more organs are required, and if organs buying and selling will solve the problem, then organ trade should be justified. Doctors must save their patients life as demanded by ethics, (Goodwin, 2006); therefore, those in favor of organ selling and buying holds that clinicians and health care providers have a moral duty to save their patients’ lives and reduce their sufferings when it is in their capacity to do it. Researches indicates that various people die yearly because of inadequate organ supply. Similarly, patients in need of organs wait for years hoping that donors will come for their rescue, all these years suffering painful and expensive dialysis interventions. Therefore, allowing people to sell and buy organs could halt unnecessary deaths and increased sufferings and agony by such patient. People have the right to participate in any form of business that they wish as long as they make profit. Thus, hindering organs sales infringes donor’s freedom of choice of participating in a most profitable venture, (Wilkinson, 2003). Cash payment from organ sales increases taxpayers’ income power and will increase their willingness to donate their organs and increase organs supply. People should look at the commercial market prosperity in enhancing organ transplant success, given the increased number of donors who are willing to donate their organs at a cost. As long as poor people receive a compensation for their donations, this is crucial to alleviate poverty. This also would enhance the financial power of poor people and the poor, rich, and desperate patients in hospitals will equally benefit. Therefore, patients in hospitals will have increased chances of gaining better health. Additionally, increased organs supply forces the mechanism of market to reduce organ prices and thus increased number of patients will afford to purchase an organ and improve their life quality. Those against organs sales argue that the process entails various risks for people donating organs. For instance, thousands of donors die from resultants complications from the operation, even though this mortality rate is seen as reduced for some sections of the low-income earners to take such a risk, (Fabre, 2007). Chances of donors’ health being affected with transplants of kidney, for instance, are increasingly high and some may experience fatigue because of complications living with single kidney. Others believe that the community has an ethical responsibility to life protection and agony relief, but through ethical strategies, therefore it is unethical for the community to use unjust methods or infringe human rights, and organ sales would violate both. Justice requires that equal life rights should be accorded to all people. To preserve this right, the community has a duty to ensure that all people – both wealthy and poor – have equal medical benefits access, (Fisanick, 2010). However, if an organ sales market were to flourish, the purchasing power would determine which people could purchase, whereas economic requirements would determine which people are encouraged to donate their organs for sale. Thus, the rich nations and individuals will purchase whereas low-income earners will sell. An organs sale market would therefore favor the rich whereas imposing pressures on the vulnerable low-income earners to endanger their lives and health. Additionally, people have a right conduct their dignified and free lives. Commercial organ sale would indispensably cause ethical infringements that would breach the dignity, respect, right, and liberty of human beings, (Goodwin, 2006). Legalizing organ sales would cause peasant’s body parts plundering for cash – the oppression of vulnerable and ignorant, mainly in developing nations. Poor people are extremely ill formed and desperate and thus profit seekers would exploit their ignorance and desperation, obtaining consent from poor people – at lower income scale and who may not understand the effects of such practices. This scheme would motivate the societal poor to see themselves as commodities and permit wealth people to infringe their rights for profit benefits, which is unethical. Organ sales may trigger crime and enhance organ theft. It causes murder of people to obtain their parts for trade. This is infringing to human rights to life, (Dickenson, 2009). Additionally, legalizing organ sale increase organ supply and trigger stiff competition in the market leading to poor quality supply of organs, for example supply of sick organs that can cause health complications to the recipients. Conclusion Irrespective of the ethical measure involved, organ sale will continue to grow and thousands of donors will continue to die because of crime issues and health complications involved. However, the ethical issue around organ sales promises to survive for long. Therefore, people have to choose among controversial moral values sets, for instance, the value placed on pain relief and death prevention, and the value placed on human dignity respect and human commitment preserving humankind requirement s in a just and equitable way. Therefore, irrespective of the controversial nature of the debate, I support organs sale because its advantages outweighs the limitations. References Dickenson, D. (2009). Body shopping: Converting body parts to profit. Oxford: Oneworld. Fabre, C. (2006). Whose body is it anyway?: Justice and the integrity of the person. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Fisanick, C. (2010). Is selling body parts ethical?. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press. Goodwin, M. (2006). Black markets: The supply and demand of body parts. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wilkinson, S. (2003). Bodies for sale: Ethics and exploitation in the human body trade. London: Routledge. Read More