Legalization Of Organ Transplant Sales In The United States
People are dying helplessly because of the lack of incentive of organ donations. Many opposed to organ compensation claim it is morally wrong to open an organ market. It is undeniably not morally or ethically justifiable to let thousands of people die waiting with the current organ procurement system. With the continual increase of patients in America seeking organ transplants, it is obvious there must be a better system put in place to mediate the supply and give an incentive to donate organs. A well-regulated legal market for organs in America is not only morally necessary, current system of organ procurement must be replaced by a legal market for human transplant organs bought from live vendors. Therefore, selling your own organs amounts to partial suicide. However, current jurisdictions already allow plasma, sperm, surrogacy, and pornography to be compensated for. This means that society has already deemed the commodification of human parts as ethical. Therefore, these arguments are paradoxical, illegal organ sales disallows control over one’s own body. It demands that person’s decisions about their own body be given to the state. It is immoral and unethical to subject any individual to moral codes that will not affect bystanders and will inevitably save lives. Therefore, the claim that the commodification of organs should be illegal because it is self-mutilation or because it is demeaning is invalid.
People should have a choice about what they do with their bodies and how that aligns with their own personal moral codes. Critics claim legalising the sales of organs will exploit the poor. Gabriel Danovitch, director of the Kidney Transplant Program at UCLA and a vocal opponent of organ sales stated, However, with further examination this claim is untrue. A 2010 survey led by Scott Halpern, a critical care medical doctor, and Deputy Director of the Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, who received a PhD in medical bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, found that monetary compensation increased the probability that someone would donate an organ, and the effect was the same regardless of social or economic status.6 Halpern further explains, urthermore, those opposed to organ compensation because it “exploits the poor” are inconsistent.
Current jurisdictions have led to the inadequate supply of transplantable kidneys, with substantial increases in the time patients must wait to receive a kidney transplant, and the numbers of patients who die while waiting, has lead the transplant community to permit the use of kidneys from donors with increased risk factors such as transmittable infections and other risk factors, such as older age or hypertension. Meaning the very people who rely on the current system to obtain a kidney are receiving half decent kidneys, this is the equivalent as exploitation. It should not be considered ethical or moral to allow organs in poor condition to be used for donations because of present jurisdictions. The illegalization of organ selling inevitably leads to a black market. Many people require organs but cannot obtain them.
Prohibition of organ sales claims to be the most ethical decision, yet many people are faced with desperation and must turn to the black markets just to merely survive. For example, Monir Moniruzzaman who received a PhD in anthropology from the University of Toronto, interviewed kidney donors in Bangladesh. Many of the donors relayed that they did not get the payment that they were promised and ended up with health problems that forced them to stop working after the removal of their kidney. These people were exploited by black market brokers and recipients. Furthermore, current jurisdictions of altruistic organ donations encourage transplant tourism. The main concern with transplant tourism is of how most operations are not sanitary, leading to increased chance of infection, and rejection of the organ. In most cases the patient comes out of the operation in worse condition than before. It is unjust and morally wrong to let the situation of many individuals get to such a dire state they feel the need to undergo surgical treatment illegally from black markets, or by transplant tourism methods. Dr. Kishore the Founder-President of Indian Society for Health Law and Ethics and Chairman of International Committee on Organ Transplantation stated, Therefore, it is immoral and unethical to prevent any individual from obtaining a life-saving organ, and it is societies utmost duty to call out the unforgivable unjustified killings of innocent people each year because of these jurisdictions. The legalization of organ sales will intern give people rights to their own moral code and body, it will help the poor rather than exploit them, and it will dissolve the black market which will save thousands of lives.
Organ compensation constitutes many benefits that outweigh the so called “risks” posed by many critics. Legalising organ sales will not only save lives, it will create a positive paradigm shift of how people perceive moral and ethical notions. However, the numbers do not have to add up this way, people are dying helplessly because of the lack of incentive of organ donations. Many opposed to organ compensation claim it is morally wrong to open an organ market. It is undeniably not morally or ethically justifiable to let thousands of people die waiting with the current organ procurement system. With the continual increase of patients in America seeking organ transplants, it is obvious there must be a better system put in place to mediate the supply and give an incentive to donate organs. A well-regulated legal market for organs in America is not only morally necessary, current system of organ procurement must be replaced by a legal market for human transplant organs purchased from living donors.