Human Dignity and the Organ Trade - Essay Example

Case Study: Human Dignity and the Organ Trade Student’s Name Name of Institution While trafficking is believed to take the form of forced labor, profitable sexual exploitation, and forced marriage, it has become widespread in organ trade. Organ trade has been recommended as a promising resolution to the ostensibly unremitting shortage of transplantation organs. In spite of the harsh and perfected laws allied to organ trade, a vast majority of the jurisdictions has not been able to restrain the rising cases of organ trafficking. Moreover, there have not been measures in place to ensure that the needy people attain organs without engaging in acts of organ trafficking. Accordingly, reports pertaining to kidnapping of people with the aim of harvesting their organs are on the verge of rise. The suffering experienced by many people is not merely because these people do not have access to organs, but rather because the breach of morality has hindered access to these organs. Hence, many people regard the act of organ trade as repugnant, alleging that the practice is unethical as it impinges on human dignity. Arguments against organ trafficking establish that the act is at variance with human dignity, predominantly among the vulnerable persons, and it commodifies the human person. This entry endeavors at providing a critical view of these objections. Human dignity is diminished by the selling of live organs because it effectively commodifies the human person A principal concern in the sale of live organs is commodification of human body. Human dignity does not merely apply to the human beings, but also to the organs they possess. This owes to the verity that organs play a critical task to ensure that the bodies are functioning perfectly. The belief deems incredibly powerful that human persons remain reluctant to sell their organs even after they die and no longer require them. Therefore, once these integral organs are sold, human dignity is lost. The act of pricing and selling out important organs is inclined toward destroying a person’s dignity (Wolf, 2009). Human beings possess unparalleled ethical worth that is no equivalent. Every person has worth that surpasses the contingencies of demand and supply or any relative estimation. Since humans are priceless, selling integral organs corrupts the meaning of the dignity allied to human persons. The sale of human organs tends to turn these organs into marketable commodities, thus leading to commodification of the human person. It reduces human beings to egocentric market participants, turning their body parts into commodities (Schweda & Schicktanz, 2009). The human person becomes a saleable commodity once a price tag has been attached to them. In this perspective, people are likely to view others as depositories of valuable organs as opposed to perceiving them as bearers of special dignity (Cohen, 1999). Besides, commerce in organs infringes on the donation spirit, leading to commodification of human body, eventually alienating people from donating their organs freely for other persons. As Immanuel Kant establishes, sale of live organs annihilates human dignity (Joseph, 2005). In respect to this assertion, Kant expounds that monetary amount cannot compensate loss of human dignity. Moreover, dignity is destroyed whereby its price does not denote its entire worth. Therefore, human dignity is substantially above every price. The insinuation is that by itself, this allegation establishes that once integral organs are removed and sold, there is no financial amount that could compensate the lost dignity. If money deems incapable of compensating loss of a thing, it is because this thing is not a commodity, thus it can never be quantified. In this point of view, sale of integral body organs constitutes commodification, as it makes not merely the organ but also the entire human being’s value calculable (Castro, 2003). This implies that the money exchanges can quantify the organ or can compensate it with an equal exchange value. Nevertheless, human dignity is typified by the fact that once lost, nothing is capable to equal its value (Cohen, 2002). Hence, the money that the organ donor receives is not enough to replace the human dignity destroyed during the sale process. It is the nature of human beings to view things in a jointly exclusive way. Objects either possess dignity or possess a market worth. The two features remain mutually exclusive because are incapable of viewing a single object as having both market value and dignity. Besides, it remains impossible to uphold the attitudes typically exhibited toward the entities regarded as having human dignity if market value is attached to the object. The sale of organs that possess dignity degrades people’s humanity, as when a price is attached to live organs, so it is attached to people. Since people are the possessors of the organs, attaching a price to the organs translates into commodifying the human persons, thus destroying their dignity. A major argument in commercialization entails assumptions pertaining to public perceptions of outlooks toward organ donation. Organ donation is viewed as a form of injustice, commodification of human body, and exploitation of poor persons. It is viewed as ineffective and psychologically problematic for organ donors. The organ donors tend to have a low self-esteem upon themselves, perceiving their body parts as mere objects with an exchange value. A vast majority of the Americans hold that the sale of human organs is illegal, as it diminishes human dignity as well as commodifies human persons. In fact, the Council of Europe did declare that the human body plus its parts ought not to provide financial gains, thus commercialization of human body parts is illegal. Moreover, the European Parliament did discuss an initiative that prohibits organ trafficking, establishing that the act impinges on human dignity (Schweda & Schicktanz, 2009). Besides, in China, organ trade is a criminal offence that attracts capital punishment. Chinese people view trading of human organs as commodification, which eventually translates into dehumanization. Equally, people of the Chinese cultural origin, owing to influence of Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism spiritual beliefs and values, do not endorse organ trade. According to their beliefs, individuals ought to take back their bodies in similar conditions that they got them, out of self-respect. Thus, organ trade annihilates human dignity, as it tends to remove some of the body organs. Some Islamic believers forbid organ donation, alleging that it is not mentioned in the conventional Islamic literature or the Quran. Moreover, they stress that it impinges upon human dignity, as they believe in the self worth and sacredness of human body. Similarly, they assert that God is the owner of the human body and only He can make decisions pertaining to its fate. Selling and buying organs impinges upon the dignity of the most vulnerable. The sellers suffer a loss of dignity in both how they perceive themselves and how their neighbors perceive them. Selling and buying organs places unwarranted pressure on economically and socially less fortunate persons who sell their organs to people who are financially privileged. The transaction results in exploitation, while underlying social inequalities. The Guiding principle five of WHO, affirming its intent to defend human dignity, asserts that paying an individual to have their organs removed for use by another person is taking undue advantage on the poor and vulnerable populations. Similarly, it communicates the notion that some people lack dignity and they represent mere objects that can be used for the benefit of other people. Even though every person lives a life of freedom, and dignity, organ trade impinges upon this dignity by denying the vulnerable persons the freedom to make rationale choices. Selling and buying organs results in abuses that eventually violate the dignity and freedom of individual beings. Organ trade leads to robbing peasants of their body parts for a profit. Accordingly, neighbors are likely to perceive the poor donors as ignorant, ill informed, and desperate. Moreover, the recipients perceive the poor donors as people without dignity, thus exploiting them more. The organs go one way, that is, from the poor to the rich, from third world nations to first world nations. Consequently, the wealthy nations exploit the poor nations, as they perceive them as desperate, unfortunate, and incapable. For instance, the Bangladeshi kidney seller, Abdul, appeared ignorant, desperate, and uninformed. With the aim of uplifting his financial life, he lost not merely his kidney but also his job and his dignity. His self worth has dwindled considerably, as he cannot engage in heavy jobs, which he used to do prior to the organ transplant. Donation of organs is inclined toward making people view the donors as depositories of organs as opposed to moral agents embracing special dignity (Cohen, 2002). When the wealthy people purchase organs from the vulnerable people, the organ recipients tend to view the donors as depositories of organs. Furthermore, the organ sellers tend to suffer loss of dignity in both how they perceive themselves and how their neighbors perceive them. They appear so desperate that they could do anything for money. For instance, in case study, Epstein (2007) portrays three prisoners from Palestine detained within Israel, who requested to be allowed to trade their kidneys to acquire money to feed their children. However, the significance of human body as well as human dignity does not allow a person to make the autonomous choice of selling one’s fundamental body organs. Besides, in his research, Moniruzzaman found various persons in Bangladeshi who were desperate for money that they sold their kidneys in the global black market. However, the transaction does not set them free from poverty, but rather leaves them in social isolation and deteriorating health. Besides, these sellers dwell in shame that they cannot express their plight. In this context, it is manifest that organ trade is highly allied to loss of human dignity, predominantly among the vulnerable people. The society perceives the sale of organs by vulnerable people as unjust distribution of burdens and benefits. The transaction appears exploitative when the relevant burdens and gains are unjustly distributed either in support of the exploiter or in opposition to the exploited (Browning & Thomas, 2001). Moreover, the sale of a person’s body parts for money is viewed as a genre of capitalism. Indeed, the Council for Transplantation Society establishes that human organs possess an extraordinary magnitude, thus the transplant surgeons ought to embrace the organs in trust for the society (Boas, 2011). The motives of both the donors and the recipients should be for the best interest, thus they should not be endeavored at either profit making or exploitation. In most instances, the society’s ethical consideration of organ trade raises major queries based on the factors leading to the transaction. The major question bases on whether the social status, political affiliation, and money are the principal foundations of the transaction. Hence, the society links purchase of live organs from the vulnerable people as a form of injustice as well as a violation of human rights. In this context, even though all people possess equal rights to access medical benefits, the transaction inclines the right toward the wealthy people while undermining the rights of the vulnerable persons. Whilst the rich benefit from the transaction, the poor do endanger their health, an aspect that portrays unequal and unjust distribution of health wellbeing gains. The Indian people raise objections against sale and purchase of human organs, alleging that the transactions lead to exploitation of the vulnerable persons. In this perspective, the wealthy people view the impoverished as desperate people who can do anything to acquire money. These lopsided transactions tend to exacerbate the already existing inequalities where the wealthy enjoy access to brilliant healthcare while the underprivileged do not. The Philippines provide a significant case study for kidney trade. Philippines, a low-income nation within Southeastern Asia, embrace a 40 percent populace living below poverty line (Mendoza, 2010). Kidney trafficking within the country has thrived as waiting lists and waiting periods for patients within Europe and North America has WHO naming it among the top five destinations for organ transplantation (Mendoza, 2010). Conclusion Every society has the responsibility of upholding human dignity. While the sense of individual worth remains high, financial power tends to overcome it. Hence, human values and value for money assume a clash, predominantly when it comes to acquiring organs for transplantation. Accordingly, major queries arise when it comes to the attitudes that individuals embrace toward the human body and the freedom they have on their bodies. Different groups approach organ trade differently, treating social, religious, and ethical issues allied to it as negotiable perspectives. Most of these perspectives establish that selling of live organs diminishes human dignity by commodifying the human person. The transaction places money value on human bodies, thus implying that body parts can be bought and sold within commercial markets just like other commodities. Furthermore, selling and buying of human organs impinges upon the dignity of the most vulnerable. Loss of human dignity results in a rise in exploitation and inequality. The wealthy persons perceive the poor people as mere objects whose body parts are readily available within the global markets. Accordingly, the vulnerable sellers suffer a loss of dignity in both how they perceive themselves and how their neighbors perceive them. They appear as desperate people who do not have freedom over their lives, thus they can be exploited freely. References Boas, H. (2011). Where do human organs come from? Trends of generalized and restricted altruism in organ donations. Social Science & Medicine 73, 1378-1385. Browning, C.J. & Thomas, S.A. (2001). Community values and preferences in transplantation organ allocation decisions. Social Science and Medicine 52, 853-861. Castro, L. (2003). Commodification and exploitation: Arguments in favor of compensated organ donation. Journal of Medical Ethics 24, 288-306. Cohen, C. (1999). Selling bits and pieces of humans to make babies: The gift of Magi revisited. Journal of Medicine 24, 288-306. Cohen, C.B. (2002). Public policy and the sale of human organs. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 12(1), 47-64. Epstein, M. (2007). The Ethics of Poverty and the Poverty of Ethics: The Case of Palestinian Prisoners in Israel Seeking to Sell Their Kidneys in Order to Feed Their Children. Journal of Medical Ethics 33(8), 473-74. Joseph, J. (2005). Selling with dignity: Organ selling and the safeguarding of human dignity. Penn Bioethics Journal 12(1). Mendoza, L. (2010). Kidney black markets and legal transplants: Are they opposite sides of the same coin. Healthy Policy 94, 255-265. Moniruzzaman, M. (2012). Living Cadavers’ in Bangladesh: Bioviolence in the Human Organ Bazaar. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 26(1), 69-91. Schweda, M. & Schicktanz, S. (2009). Public ideas and values concerning the commercialization of organ donation in four European countries. Social Science & Medicine 68, 1129-1136. Wolf, C. (2009). Commodification, exploitation, and the market for transplant organs. Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Read More