Surprisingly, nearly 10 percent of 10,000 English patients, who are on the waiting list for organs transplant, dies each year before they obtain an organ (Bates, 2011). While this number tends to rocket in not only England but also worldwide range, almost all the government still keep passing numerous policies to restrict the supply of transplant organs. Typically, they have long prohibited trafficking human organs regardless of proposals for reform. As a further work on this issue, the article “Sales of Kidneys Prompt New Law and Debate” from the book “Topics for Today” (Smith and Mare, 2004) continues providing an insight into the controversy over legalization of commercial transactions in human organs, specially, kidneys. In my opinion, government should make the sale of human tissue lawful promptly on top of patients’ life.
Since legitimation of the market for human flesh remains contentious, the article “Sales of Kidneys Prompt New Law and Debate” (Trucco cited in Smith and Mare, 2004, pp. 169-172) has already interpreted the topic objectively by rendering both of approvals and adverse ones. To demonstrate, the former is first expressed that the validity of juridical loopholes facilitates evading the law. For instance, recipients can put doctors across with counterfeit medical referrals proving the blood relationship among dealers. Hence, the ban on organ trade would become pointless. Additionally, the transactions in human organs are catchy deals to both two participants. A professor said: “The seller is able to indulge in a few of the good things in life. The buyer may well be paying to survive”.
Besides, the dramatic fall in kidney donators also reveals why sale for human organs should not be proscribed. The ban, according to the author, “could scare off suitable donors and add to the shortage of kidneys by somehow creating the impression that all donations are improper”. On the other hand, the government seems faultless when rejecting the transactions exchanging human tissue for luxuries, holidays and other frivolity.
Moreover, commercial dealings in human organs were no longer of esssence if a governmental incentive system for cadaver donation might be introduced. A respondent stated that “a monetary ‘thank you’ from the Federal Government could stimulate increases in organ and tissue availability for transplantation and research”. Similarly, a new legislation to make organ donation automatic upon decease is expected to iron out the lack of organs devoted to transplantation.
Regardless of above multifarious opinions, there is still vagueness in determining whether an unfettered market for human organ is overweight. Thus, it is crucial to research more evidence supporting the legalization of organ dealings with a view to concreting my notion:
Whilst some people talk about selling human flesh as a corruption, legitimation of this transaction can still deem to be an ethical sanction in terms of human life preservation. Actually, thousands of transplant candidates could not wait until a renal transplantation is undertaken. To illustrate, a statistic conducted in the America reveals that the overall median time for transplant candidates awaiting a consistent kidney was up to three years in 2004 (Knoll, 2008).
In another study, the British national waiting list in 2008 exceeded seven thousand and has been increasing by eight percent annually (Department of Health, 2008). Facing with this severe situation, the presence of a legal market for organs has become more meaningful than ever to alleviate deficiency in transplant organs. Consequently, it so turns out that organ trafficking, which have long destroyed ethical principles in the society, can achieve humanitarianism by creating more chance for survival.
On the principle of respect for self-ownership, people should be permitted to sell a part of their body in a reasonable limitation. Obviously, libertarianism is always one of the first amendments in any nation constitution. In other words, “the basic claim common to all is that autonomous and competent adults have a strong presumptive right to do as they please with their own bodies, especially where this is not substantially harmful to third parties” (Wilkinson,2011). As a result, people should have been allowed to exchange their body organs for money. Notwithstanding, it does not mean that desperately poor people are able to remove indispensable organs for living “voluntarily” based on notion of autonomy. Hence, it was fundamental to set limitations if organ trade could be authorized in the future.
Commerce in body parts also narrows the inequalities between rich and poor to some extents. Initially, this claim may sounds nonsense when majority of people believe that “legalize payment for organ donors as such payment institutionalizes the belief that the wealthy ill have property rights to the body parts of the poor” (Vathsala cited in Ritter, 2008). Nevertheless, the discrimination, in fact, still persists due to the presence of black market for human flesh.
By do-or-die situation of patients, the prices in the illegal market reach the extravagant level at which the poor can never afford. Pattinson (2003) illustrated that: “the desperation of some is somewhat anecdotally highlighted by the attempt of a man from Florida to auction a kidney on eBay- the price got up to $5.7 million before eBay stepped in and cancelled the auction”. On the basis of economic thinking, if the government allow sale of human organs, then it leads to the increasing availability of transplant organs and the corresponding decrease in the price. As a result, organ transplantation will become more accessible for the poor.
It cannot be denied that ethical principles are the most remarkable barriers to unfetter market for human flesh. No matter where a negotiation on selling and buying human organs is taken place, this deal is socially unacceptable. Moreover, numerous ethicists even go further when punctuating that legitimation of organ trafficking may displace or shrink altruism. According to Abouna (1991, p. 167), “marketing in human organs will eventually deprecate and destroy the present willingness of members of the public to donate their organs out of altruism”.
Nonetheless, commercial use of one’s body should be evaluated in a more expansive view. In comparison, selling a kidney for transplantation and some legal dangerous occupations (such as firefighting, coal mining, war participating) are quite similar in terms of life-threatening potential and high social demand. Consequently, it is unjustified to permit people to be financially rewarded for these hazardous jobs whilst banning them to be paid for their organs.
In a nutshell, the ban on organ trafficking should be withdrawn regardless of remaining debate. Once the current organ transplantation ensuring fairness and impartiality cannot keep up with the massive demand, it would be more rational to save more lives by countenancing organs dealings rather than having no legal transactions, a long waiting list for organ transplant and almost certainly, a black market. Total word: 1,109