Analysis of Sale of Human Organs Arguments - Research Paper Example

Analysis of Sale of Human Organs Arguments Organ transplant is a process that helps save life of individualswhose organs failed to function. These transplant organs sometimes are rare to get and if found, they might not be from healthy people and hence cannot serve for long periods. Legalization of the sale of these organs has become the debate for many years and politicized severally. Many authors have written about the issue with examples of two samples covered in this essay. David Holcberg is one of the authors who have written several articles including case of organ sale. He is a media researcher having written many letters to the editor for the top U.S. newspapers where his work features in most of the main and well-known papers. Joanna Mackay is another writer who has written the essay on “organ sales will save lives” and she is an actor well known for acting some documentaries and movies. This paper gathers some of the points from these two writers and summarizes their persuasiveness and inefficiency. David’s point of people donating organs for money is very persuasive as he talks about compensation for any organ donated. it makes more sense when he claims that organs from deceased people donated and the person’s family could be beneficial. For both the deceased’s family and the needy person of the organ can benefit in the process. For instance, if the family needs some money for bills in the hospital or burial, they can decide to exchange some organs of the deceased for money, which can serve best for all. This type of exchange for vital organs can motivate people to donate one of their organs in their life to save some life or get money to perform other work, which could be urgent (David, 2005). The beneficial should not only be the recipient of the organs but both parties involved. This point is very much persuasive as people can be willing to give out their organs for compensation. This effect can work, as it is evident that donors of these organs live well without any disorder or reduction of functionalities in their bodies. An instance when such decisions can serve a good purpose is when money for urgent medication is needed and no available source, someone can donate an organ and serve the pain but make both people survive. In his argument, a person has a right over their bodies and not controlled by either the government or any other body. If an organ transplant sale authorized, people can give out willingly due to the offered compensation. An example of unpersuasive point is that, if the organs are for sale, some desperate people will not benefit if they cannot afford to buy the organ. As David claims people will tend to kill others for their own benefit. The argument of an objection of selling an organ cannot lead to the destruction of people live or due to failure of getting the right price for a certain organ. In his exploration, the question which asks for one to assume they needed an organ and in the process finds someone willing to sell, it is realistic that, if you need something vital for your life that you have no option left. If this becomes the case, people can be taking others’ lives willingly to benefit from their body organs. Another instance is the point that, if the law recognizes the right to live, it should also recognize the right to sell an organ. Consider for instance, the person gets a willing buyer of an organ, they decide to get their own organs for their benefit and in the process, and a disorder emerges. The donor gets problems, which were not available before, and this reduces their life span just for money. This argument if vague as it does not consider the source of the organ and health of the donor. Not only the willing buyer and willing seller perspectives are important but also the health status of the two (David, 2005). Mackay in “Organ sales will save” claims that, a big number is in need of organ transplant and there are no willing free donors to match the needs. When there is no family member willing to offer an organ, the victim remains unsafe and most cases death is the only cause. On the other hand, so many people are willing to sell their organs for money while others are willing to buy to save their lives or even families and friends life. If organ sale authorized, people will be willing to donate organs since it is a motivation for them and can serve as a way to save lives of people. This statement is efficient as in the real sense; many people die waiting for organs from people through accidents or old age, which are rare, and put their life in danger of death. This has caused people to buy organs through the black market, which is costly and unsafe at some times. To prevent these governments should authorize purchase of organs to save lives and prevent unauthorized sales of organs and deaths of able people (David, 2005). The other persuasive point of Mackay is the claim that, these black market organs are too expensive and from people who had accidents and damaged therefore guaranteeing a less life span compared to directly transplanted organs. The donor’s life is at risk of disorders and the only option is to allow for the sale of organs for safe transplant of these organs. There are many people willing to sell their organs for cheaper prices and this can suffice the number in need of kidneys and other organ vital for their lives. This is an effective point, as it is fact that these donors willing to sell their organs mostly in the third world countries exist. It should therefore become of novice that, they be allowed to sell their organs to earn a living as most only have to do it for money to pay debts, houses and food (Mackay, 2004). It is unpersuasive to claim that, it is cheaper to control and authorize the sale of organs that control the illegal black market sale of the same. It can be termed as if legalizing the sale can put many lives at risk also. As many people can be out to donate for money and save their bad lives. Many people are out to save their miserable lives and they might not mind about their health in future. This can be a risk as people willingly donate for the compensation and end up living lives with disorders due to the legalization of the transplant (Mackay, 2004). The two readings each have their opinions on the sale of organs to save many lives of needy people. It makes a bit of sense at some times to legalize the sale of these organs as needy people who do not have donors ready to save their lives gets the only option to buy and save their lives. As an organ transplant can serve, a longer life even to the lifetime of an individual, legalization can advocate for safe transplant and save lives for donors too. In my opinion, legalization of organ sell can help save a life and increase living standards of some health donors who live under low standards. The compensation if controlled by the government can be fair and no failures of payment as people prosecuted in case of failure to pay unlike the case of black market. Although this can put some donor’s lives in danger, but the government can authorize for testing of fitness for donor before undergoing the transplant process. Work Cited David, Holcberg. Human Organs for Sale. (2005). Retrieved from, http://capitalismmagazine.com/2005/07/human-organs-for-sale/ on October 30, 2013. Mackay Joanna. Ethics and Politics in Science: Organ Sales Will Save lives. (2004). Retrieved from:http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/write/fieldguide/3e/Web_Essays/3e/McKay.pdf on October 30, 2013. Read More