A billionaire executive is in desperate need of a kidney transplant and is low on the waiting list for prospective donors. However, he decides to offer a proposition to any takers: an immediate $2 million pay out, free health care and an annual payment of $500,000 a year for the rest of the donor's life (or his wife if he predeceases her) in exchange for one kidney. After only a few days, he has more than enough people willing to make the exchange. Unfortunately for the billionaire such a transaction is currently illegal. But should it? The exchange, after all, cause no harm to either the executive (whose life is saved )or the donor (who no longer has any financial worries and is perfectly healthy with only one kidney). What should be the legal status of selling organs -- and on what principle?
Under the law, selling kidneys should be illegal. One reason against making the purchase and sale of organs legal is that it would inevitably lead to a society in which only the wealthy could benefit from life-saving organ transplants, and the poor would be the primary donors of those organs. The poor would sell the organs to escape their financial restraints. A market would tarnish organ transplantation's credibility and result in negative medical outcomes. It would jeopardize existing, voluntary organ donation programs and be ineffective in expanding organ supply. The black market should not be legalized, but the suggestion that patients accept death rather than resort to the black market isn’t reasonable. The only way to completely eliminate demand for this illegal behavior, shut down the black market, and improve donor and recipient safety is to develop a legal, regulated structure for donor compensation. But according to Dworkin’s principle, the law should be based on moral integrity, which is regarded as the moral belief that the government should act on principle in order to treat all members of the community equally. Dworkin would believe that donating a kidney for no personal gain is morally acceptable. The moral legitimacy of these practices indicates that body autonomy is defined as a person's ability to choose how their body is treated by others. Allowing people to participate in the organ market, according to Dworkin, is a means of recognizing their area of control. He would argue that people should be allowed to exert control over their bodies, and that permitting a market in human organs will increase personal autonomy by removing a barrier.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this scenario ends on a positive note, there are many downsides to selling organs, which ultimately justify the laws set against them. First, being able to buy and sell kidneys creates inaccessibility for those without enough money, as people with enough money can immediately get a kidney transplant. This leads to potentially dangerous means of acquiring a kidney, like through a black market or other dangerous ways. In addition, with the legalization of selling kidneys/organs, the black market would skyrocket, as there would be a market for recipients who need organs and a market for vendors, who could make money off of other people’s organs. This would lead to a demand for kidneys or other organs, and ultimately lots of harm towards others, like, for example, the homeless. This falls into Mill’s harm to others principle, as those people may not consent to give a kidney, thus providing the justification for making it illegal. It also brings the possibility of a higher rate of violence, murder, and abduction in order to supply the demand, again following Mill’s principle. Second, being able to sell organs completely degrades the value of and puts a price on human life. By selling organs, the human body is now seen as a profit rather than another person, which raises the problem of morality. In the end, there are both moral and justifiable arguments against the legalization of selling organs which follow Mill’s harm to others principle, ultimately leading to the illegal status of this crime.
ReplyDeleteThe buying of organs shouldn’t be illegal. If it were legal, in rare cases, those who can afford it would be able to buy organs from living donors, like in the situation given. In the example, both of the parties involve benefit from the transaction. The seller receives copious amounts of money, and the buyer receives an organ. However, a system where people can sell their organs must have regulations, If the right regulations are in place there would be no way for people to sell organs that are not theirs. This could be done by having the organ being sold being in the body of the seller before the transaction, and by the end of the transaction it would be firmly planted in the buyer. There would also have to be a one kidney sold per person rule to prevent people from stealing kidneys and having them secretly implanted in them. Then selling the kidney that is technically in their body. There also should be a huge tax on the organ to limit the demand and number of buyers. There will not be a market formed around the selling of organs because the majority of organs that are donated are given by deceased donors, people who died unexpectedly and have a donor card. A very small percentage of donations are actually given by living donors. There will also not be a market because there will be very little demand. However, in the end, it still increases your freedom, and their will still be a similar number of organs donated, especially when synthetic organs become fully established.
ReplyDeleteLaws against selling organs are justified, if selling organs became legal, many problems would arise such as the wealthy being the only individuals with access to organs in times of need. If organ markets became legalized individuals would have the opportunity to pay/bid for an organ so they could receive their medical procedure faster than waiting on the corresponding waitlist; in doing so the wealthy are cheating the poorer individuals that may be in greater need of the organ based off waitlist priority. In addition, with the rich primarily buying from the market, the poor would be the main contributor. With individuals contributing organs to an organ market, several problems that could potentially harm others may occur, this goes against Mill’s harm principle. In this principle, Mill explains that any action that results in causing harm to other individuals is so wrong that the state can intervene to stop the said action to prevent the harm of others. If organ markets became legal with the terms that an individual just has to bring in an organ to receive payment, the said individual could bring in organs that are not their own. This situation unintentionally hints at the idea of harming others for an individual’s own benefit. For example, Person A may murder Person B, steal Person B’s organs, and deliver Person B’s organs to the organ market for payment. As the demand for organs increases, the crime rates, specifically violence rates, may increases as well which once again goes against Mill’s harm principal. Due to the potential violence that comes with selling organs, laws against selling organs are justified.
ReplyDeleteSelling kidneys or other organs essential to life should be illegal based off the principle of taking advantage of people’s poor circumstances while they are at a poor level of decision-making. In many cases, the people donating the organs would be those not well off, and this would almost be something that they would be forced to do to survive. While it has the illusion of choice for those selling their kidneys, the billionaire would be taking advantage of the sellers similar to the way Mill says gambling houses take advantage of those not in their best head space. Those attempting to sell their kidneys would be in a desperate headspace, doing what they can to financially support themselves and those dependent on them, even selling their own organs. This also opens the gateway to more dangerous operations, and people harvesting their organs that are not as safe to live without. Money should not serve as a cheat code for cutting the line and they should have the same opportunities in this circumstance as those waiting for a transplant who are not billionaires. People would also not be willing to donate their kidneys for free when they could be handsomely financially compensated, which would make the only way to access necessary transplants by being a billionaire, harming all those unable to pay for these transplants. Also through Mill’s harm principle, these people can still be harming themselves as there is always a chance the surgery could go wrong, and although small, the difference between living with one versus two kidneys does exist.
ReplyDelete