Commercializationof Organ Transplant
Commercializationof Organ Transplant
Organtransplantation refers to the process by which surgical doctorsremove a tissue from one individual and fix it in another person’sbody in order to improve the health of the recipient.Commercialization of organ transplants has raised a highly contesteddebate over a long time some people support this process whileothers oppose it in an enormous manner.
Arguments for and against commercialization of organ transplants
Arguments for the commercialization of organ transplants
Siegel& Alvaro (2010) argue that commercialization of transplants playa key role in saving lives of many people through the alleviation oftransplant organs’ shortage. Thus, this process increase the supplyof organs needed for transplants. Many hospitals face the challengeof lack of enough organs needed for transplantation due to the highnumber of patients that require these organs. According to Siegel etal (2010), organs are only accepted from patients that commit suicidedue to altruism the number of organs from such patients is notenough to cater for the medical needs globally. Likewise, Cherry(2005) argues that commercialization of transplants will lower downcases of family members being forced to donate organs for their lovedone when a need arise. This is because no donor is forced to donatetheir organs in paid donations their consent is always free sincethey do it willingly. In addition, commercialization of transplantshelp patients get access to the required organs since members oftheir family may lack organs that are compatible with their body.Further this act plays an enormous role in creating equity to theaccess of organs to all thus, it reduces the gap between the richand the poor in a significant manner.
Arguments against commercialization of transplants
Satz(2010) insists that the process of commercializing transplantselevate health risks of donors. Therefore, this process is extremelydangerous and harmful for any paid organ donor. This is because anindividual who is unfit to donate his or her organ may be more thanwilling to donate in order to have monetary gains. As a result, suchan individual may end up dying hence, causing the society quite animmense loss. Again, this act may coerce mentally unstableindividuals to donate their organs. Satz (2010) also argue thatcommercialization of transplants have a high likelihood of increasingthe rate of crime in a society. This is because some people may betempted to kill others in order to sell their organs.
Moreover,organ sales play a key role in distorting the vendor country. Forinstance, in the recent past, sales of livers and kidneys as well asexecutions boomed in China each execution brought along one livertransplant (Cherry, 2005).
Accordingto Wilkinson & Garrand (2006), donation is highly destroyed incountries where organ sales are permitted. Wilkinson et al (2006)further argues that domestic programmes continuously fail and areunderfunded in countries that experience a large number of transplantrecipients going overseas.
Saleof organs plays little or no role lifting people from poverty anddestitution. For instance, incomes of most average family in Indiaand Pakistan decline by more than two third despite the fact thatthey sell their kidneys to pay off their debts (Satz, 2010).
My stand/position on the debate
Commercializationof transplants should be embraced and permitted in all parts of theworld. This is because the chief aim of this act is to save lives.There is nothing more significant, valuable, and ethical than savinghuman lives hence, it should be upheld at all possible costs andsituations. Since medical experts have approved the success of organtransplants, there is no reason for it not to be commercialized inorder to save lives of sick individuals who constantly anddesperately seek for help.
Mymoral judgment is based on the fact that commercialization of organtransplants comes along with best results to individuals in need ofhealth care. Utilitarian is the best moral principle to appeal to inmy argument. Any negative consequences are by far outweighed by thevarious social benefits that come along with commercialization oforgan transplants. This is in accordance to utilitarianism ethicalprinciple that argue that any action is considered morally right ifit has a high likelihood of maximizing happiness of all individualsaffected (West, 2004). Commercialization of organ transplants bringshappiness to people in need of such organs since it help save theirlives.
Theutilitarianism theory best supports my conclusion. Commercializationof organ transplants help save lives, brings happiness to families,and promotes unity amongst a society. The rightfulness or wrongnessof this process is determined by how much happiness or pleasure andhow little pain it brings to all people involved. Undeniably, itbrings happiness to individuals by saving their lives. Indeed, it isan ethical act that is morally right and promotes unity in a society.Undoubtedly, commercialization of organ plants act in accordance toutilitarianism theory since it serve to bring happiness to allindividuals involved.
Cherry,M. J. (2005). Kidneyfor Sale by Owner: Human Organs, Transplantation, and the Market.Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Satz,D. (2010). WhySome Things Should not be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Siegel,J. T & Alvaro, E. M. (2010). UnderstandingOrgan Donation.Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
West,H.R. (2004). AnIntroduction to Mill’s Utilitarian Ethics.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkinson,S & Garrard, E. (2006). Bodily Integrity and the Sale of HumanOrgans. Journalof Medical Ethics,22, 334–339.