In many arguments surrounding the moral quagmire of organ
sales, we often hear the needs of patients on organ transplant lists pitted
against the welfare of organ donors/sellers. The refrain is common: 9 out of 10
people who need an organ transplant operation cannot obtain one, but if we
legalize the selling of organs, supply will rise. On the other hand, such a
drastic legal move would endanger millions of healthy humans around the world.
By doing so, we could be exploiting their poverty; a man with a starving family
may feel too much pressure to sell a kidney for a couple grand (I, for one,
think he should be able to make that choice so that his family lives another
day, but that’s another topic). Also, traders in today’s black market are known
to forcibly cut out organs from others to sell them. If we created a legal
market, this situation would only worsen.
However, arguments for legalization that are based on the
good of the donor are overlooked. Our patronizing attitude toward those who
look to sell their organs is nonsensical. Have you ever heard anyone discussing
making this illegal? Activities enjoyed by the wealthy like the one shown in
the video (wingsuiting) are legal in most countries. Ironically, these luxury
activities can be more far more dangerous than any organ removal surgery, and
yet yield far less value to the participants. It seems indefensible to let the
privileged hang their life by a thread for a little bit of fun, yet not allow
the poor to undergo surgeries for life-changing profits.
The claims that a legal market for organs would encourage
mistreatment of vulnerable people also don’t hold merit. With a legal market,
organ sales would be much more closely monitored, eliminating the chance for
abuse. A higher supply would also drive price down, removing the incentive for
criminals to forcibly remove others’ organs.
What about those in countries where black markets are less
common, like the United States? Some opponents of legalization make lofty talk
about how all that is good and noble in this world hangs on money-free organ
donations. They insist that letting organs be sold takes away the opportunity
to give one sacrificially. One problem with this line of reasoning is that it
assumes an action loses its goodness when money becomes involved. But when we
consider the roles of doctors—highly paid workers who are nonetheless
emotionally involved and appreciated by patients—it should become clear that
altruism and payment are not exclusive (also, if money corrupts organ
donations, then the involvement of paid
doctors implies that the donation is already corrupted). Plus, donating an
organ is a serious choice that could have heavy consequences in the future. It
seems unfair to decide that someone can’t receive money when they are doing
good for others at their own risk.
Sources:
3 comments:
Austenm raises a number a good points in his blog post, and in general, I also tend to agree with the arguments that he has presented here regarding the permissibility of organ sales. In a market, what is constantly being evaluated is the opportunity costs against the potential profits of a transaction, and with the availability of organs increasing in an organ market, the profit will continue to fall, leaving the decision up to the donor to decide. Therefore, there is no force or coercion, as opponents may contend.
Austenm largely approaches this debate from an economic angle, arguing that a legal market will both increase the availability of organs and will decrease the negative effects of a black market. However, I also believe that a significant social aspect of the organ market debate can be effectively knocked down, namely, the argument that the selling of organs will lead to the commodification of the human bodies.
Opponents of the legalization of an organ market contend that just because the only possible "owner" of an organ is the person in whose body it exists does not deem it permissible to sell it to the highest bidder. Just because one owns his own body as a whole does not mean that one can sell oneself into slavery. In other words, human beings cannot be made into commodities like that. Merely observing that you "own" something does not also confer the absolute right to transfer ownership and control to anyone else and in any manner you wish.
However, while this point may be valid, it fails to effectively apply to the debate at hand. Selling one's whole body into slavery versus selling an organ are two incredibly different things. There is no doubt that one's body is necessary for survival and for life. However, with organ donations, the organs that would be up for sale would be those which are not necessary for the donor's survival. For example, it has been scientifically proven that, in order to live, one needs only one kidney. No donor will voluntarily give up an organ for a profit that he will not live to enjoy. Therefore, this comparison to slavery grossly exaggerates the issue at hand, so under this social test, the legalization of organ markets still stands.
I am actually opposed to the selling of organs for a number of reasons, but one of my main worries with the practice is that there is no non-arbitrary line with which to distinguish non-essential body parts that can be sold and essential body parts that can be sold. kyi appears to be arguing that the slavery analogy is poor and that there is a significant ethical difference between selling one’s entire body and selling a small part of one’s body.
Granting this claim, though, how is one to determine when a body part becomes too important to be sold? If I wanted to sell my hands and my feet, would that be permissible under the moral framework austenm and kyi have presented in defense of organ markets? It is hard to see why not. Strictly speaking, we can live without our hands or our feet, but we would surely balk at the idea of selling these organs for the sake of profit.
One could respond by restricting the selling of organs to just the selling of internal organs. Aside from the question of whether or not such a distinction is morally relevant, the same issue seems to apply. One can live without a lung, but would we really accept someone’s selling his or her lung as a permissible act?
Perhaps one might wish to restrict the selling of organs to just the organs with which we can comfortably survive without. The problem here is that it is not entirely clear as to what constitutes a “comfortable” existence. The concept is very subjective, so a rigorous definition would have to be employed for this reply to work. Moreover, though, this restriction proves too much. After all, it is better and, in a sense, more comfortable to have two kidneys as opposed to just one. But, if this is the case, then there are very few organs which one can sell in the first place.
Hence, it is considerations such as these that give me great concern about a legal organ market. It must be also noted that the entire idea of organ sale is based upon the assumption that one’s body is akin to one’s property in that it can be divided and sold. If, as I believe, one’s body is an integral aspect of one’s being and identity, no comparison of the body to mere property can be rationally made. And, if that is true, then an organ market cannot be justified under such a view of persons.
I agree with most of the points brought up in Austen’s post. There is no reason why and informed consenting adult cannot choose to sell their organs for a profit. The key here though is that they have to be informed and consenting. Both of these conditions should hold as long as the organ donation or sale is legal and run correctly. Obviously this would have to be a tightly regulated industry but I definitely see it being possible to accomplish.
I think the argument that profiting from selling ones organs removes the altruism in the act is a little ridiculous. Why is the deed any less noble and kind? And if it is less altruistic why is this a bad thing? In the big picture the sick are still getting organs that are saving their lives, why does it matter if they were donated or sold?
I do agree with Vanarp B though that a line does have to be drawn about what organs you can and cannot sell. However I think this line is much easier to make than Vanarp B does. There are a number of organs that humans can live and function with only one of. If the person can survive the donation, even with side effects, than there is no reason that they should not be allowed to partially hinder their own health to save someone else’s life. Keep in mind though the donor would still need to be 100% fully informed about these side effects and what life would be like after the donation. Secondly there are only a select few organs that doctors can successfully transplant. Only four organs are commonly donated form living donors, the kidney, and portions of the lung, liver, and pancreas. Any other organs aren’t accepted from living owners at all, so there is no need to worry about people donating thing like their hand or arm.
http://www.kidney.org/transplantation/livingdonors/infoqa.cfm#1b
Post a Comment