Commercialization of Organ Transplants Paper
Introduction
Nowadays medicine is quickly developing and new methods of prolonging life are evolving. One of such methods is organ transplantation. This operation is the removal of organ from the donor to the recipient. Earlier transplantation of organs was problematic, but with the development of medicine the process of transplanting organs became easier. However, the number of patients waiting for donor organs significantly exceeds the number of donors.Commercialization of Organ Transplants Paper
Most countries nowadays prohibit the commercialization of transplants, so donor organs are provided by volunteers or bequeathed to the recipients by the volunteers (and provided after their death) (Simmerling, Angelos, Franklin & Abecassis, 2006). At the same time, the evolution of technology allows to perform organ donation more safely for the donor and with minimum of health consequences as compared to the previous technologies. As the ease of organ transplantation increases, ethical debate related to the commercialization of transplants intensifies. The purpose of this paper is to review the arguments for and against the commercialization of transplants, to formulate own position on the debate of whether or not the sale of organs should be permitted, to defend this position with moral arguments and to identify which normative theory of ethics best supports this conclusion.Commercialization of Organ Transplants Paper
Arguments for and against the commercialization of transplants
There are both the supporters and opponents of the commercialization of transplants. The supporters of commercialization state that direct payments for organs will increase the number of people willing to become organ donors and will therefore help to save many lives. Currently many patients have to wait their donor for years, and some of them unfortunately do not survive until that moment. Furthermore, the supporters of organ commercialization state that paid organ donation will help to alleviate poverty and that prohibiting people to decide the fate of their organs is unjust and paternalistic (Simmerling et al., 2006). One more argument in support of transplant commercialization is the fact that many organs can be used after death, and the lack of incentives for people to do this results in the loss of many lives. In addition to this, the supporters of the commercialization of transplants emphasize that it is unjust to prohibit selling organs because potential donors lose an opportunity to receive a financial gain (Simmerling et al., 2006).
The opponents of the commercialization of transplants emphasize that payment for organ donations would coerce low-income individuals to become donors and that paid organ donations would lead to the discrimination of low-income patients who could not afford purchasing a donor organ. In addition to this, the opponents of such commercialization rely on the statistics from Pakistan where organ commercialization is allowed (Simmerling et al., 2006). In Pakistan, neither health nor well-being of the majority of low-income donors improved, and it was noted that the health of organ donors deteriorated (Simmerling et al., 2006). Additional arguments against the commercialization of transplants are the deterioration of relationships between patients and doctors, degradation of the basic social values such as right for life, liberty due to the “commoditization” of organs (Simmerling et al., 2006). The practice of bequeathing organs after death in exchange for cash or other reimbursements might also clash with the feelings of the relatives of the deceased and the cultural importance of burial.
Own position and moral arguments
In my opinion, modern technology is nowadays better suited for organ transplantation and therefore there is a need to change policies related to the compensation for organ transplantation. The Earth’s population is ageing and the need for organ transplantation is likely to increase in the future. It is likely that the number of volunteers will always be insufficient. Furthermore, it is necessary to encourage people to donate their organs after death, because in this case they might prolong the lives of other people.
At the same time, direct payments for transplants will affect the vulnerable low-income class and might contribute to the deterioration of their life and health. The poor often lack education and awareness to estimate the potential consequences of donating organs. Moreover, low-income patients will be discriminated against by such a policy, because they will be unable to pay for organs and therefore will not have access to transplants.Commercialization of Organ Transplants Paper
It is recommended to choose a balanced position. The government should allow to reimburse the act of donating an organ for transplantation to the donor. However, this reimbursement and the process of donation should be strictly regulated by the government. The state should provide reimbursement in the form of a deposit which can be used for decent purposes such as healthcare, education, donation and other activities which either benefit the individual or the society. Furthermore, the state should cover these payments for the poor or parts of these payments to the families with low income (which are close to poor).
Donors and patients should not contact each other, and all reimbursement will take place through state channels. The same refers to donating organs after death. In this way, the government will minimize moral and ethical issues related to full commercialization of transplants and at the same time encourage organ donation. Furthermore, it is likely that such measures will help to eliminate “black” organ markets, medical tourism and other criminal activities related to organ transplantation.
Normative theory in support of the proposed solution
There are three major branches of normative ethics: utilitarianism, virtue ethics and deontology. Utilitarian ethics is based on identifying the consequences of the chosen solution for all involved stakeholders. In utilitarianism, a solution is deemed as ethical if it maximizes the utility for all involved stakeholders (i.e. maximizes pleasure and other positive consequences or minimize pain and other negative consequences) (Stewart, 2009). Deontology is a rule-based approach: in this branch of ethics, an action is judged as moral if it adheres to ethical rules (Waluchow, 2003). In virtue ethics, the decision is considered ethical if an individual or an entity implementing this solution demonstrates moral virtues, such as wisdom, courage, temperance, etc. (Waluchow, 2003)Commercialization of Organ Transplants Paper
The proposed solution is best supported by utilitarian theory. Indeed, this solution attempts to encourage the positive consequences of the commercialization of transplants while minimizing the negative consequences of introducing paid organ donations. This solution is expected to increase the number of lives saved due to organ donation. The donors will receive reimbursements which they will be able to use for reasonable purposes that will most likely benefit them. The implementation of such policy will likely reduce criminal activities related to organ transplantation because the processes will be legal and regulated by state. Therefore, negative consequences for all involved stakeholders are reduced, while positive consequences are maximized. According to utilitarian ethical theory, this decision is moral and justified.Commercialization of Organ Transplants Paper