Rights of Donors to Donated Tissue - Essay Example

Kerry Howley, a senior editor, in his article, "WHO OWNS YOUR BODY PARTS?" claims that the demand for human donor tissue has caused an increase in price of the post-mortem human remains. An example is Cooke, who was a cancer victim but later on died. The New York Mortuary service assured his daughter, Kittredge, a box of ashes while they had other plans for her fathers corpse. The funeral director offered “New Jersey Tissue Procurement Agency” the permission to access Cookes remains but at a certain fee. The agency prepped the bones and falsified the cause of death. Michael, the owner of the Biomedical Tissue Services had a business plan where he would pay the funeral directors to be granted the permission to access the dead bodies and later resell spines, bones and other tissues to other firms who needed human spare parts. In the year 2005, Michael was exposed by prosecutors for having gained $4.6 million in just three years. He offered undertakers $1000 for providing access to the dead bodies, paid the cutters $300 to $500 for extracting the wanted organs, and afterwards took home around $7000 per body. Later on, the New York Police interviewed the families of 1077 people whose bodies went missing for bones, spines and other tissues. Kristen E. Schleiter, a senior research associate for the Council on “Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association”, in his article "DONORS HAVE NO RIGHTS TO DONATED TISSUE" explains that one might have surrendering ownership of donated tissues of himself or herself or the person close to him or her. One of the definitions of Autonomy is that it allows an individual to participate in a clinical research and donate the body tissues towards research purposes with the boundaries unclear when the donated tissues depart the body and the recipient accepts them. However, no law has been passed to clearly establish and govern the ownership rights in donated tissues but researchers and institution have made assumptions that they have the right to study, transfer, collect, or get rid of human tissue specimens and the associated patient data such as genetic testing. There have also been assumptions by researchers that they can use the tissue and other respective body parts to develop a genetic sequence, cell lines and other products that may be rewarded financially. Moore v. Regents of University of California case proved that even if the excised cells initially belonged to a certain individual, the cells were legally and factually distinct from the research product thus the court held to the conclusion that individuals dont have an ownership interest in their cells after the cells have been extracted from their bodies. Arthur Caplan, a professor and director of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, in the article "TROUBLE WITH ORGAN TRAFFICKING" argues that trafficking human body parts possess several risks. Many cases of organ trafficking occur around the globe and in the past few years, wealthy people have travelled with the aim of transplants from the different countries around the world to nations like China, Pakistan and Egypt I order to get livers and kidneys. In addition to this, there is also an established market dealing with human tissues obtained from cadavers. This includes several parts been trafficked to other countries at a profit. Skins obtained from Netherlands has been trafficked and sold in Czech Republic and tissues from Pakistan transported to Netherlands at a profit too. One can argue that it is clearly unethical to exploit the living and treating them as mobile parts farms where those who deal with the bodies of the deceased can make a profit by selling pieces. It is also very hard to find individuals or anyone willing to defend these market schemes especially when the results for the buyers and sellers being much worse than would be expected with organs and tissues that are obtained legitimately. Few observers of the illicit trade to obtain organs, and other body parts argue that the big problem is not obtaining the living or the dead for financial profit, but such activities are just illegal. Sally Satel, a practicing psychiatrist, in the article "WHY WE NEED A MARKET FOR HUMAN ORGANS" discusses the reasons to endorse the public sale of body parts by willing donors. In the current system, people arent willing to offer their body organs for free but for around $50, 000, several Australians would donate their organs. Suggestions have also been made that the federal government should offer willing donors with proper ethical controls. However, several individuals have tried to keep the organ desperate patients away from the black markets but this operation seems impossible until organ shortages like kidney deficiencies are resolved. Otherwise, patients from Australia and in countries all over the world will keep on resorting them. Thousands of patients die each year for want of a kidney due to the global shortage of body organs and because organ sales are illicit, the corrupt brokers may deceive the donors about the character of transplant surgery, cheat on them, and ignore the postsurgical needs and long-term complications. Currently, the only possible remedy is to increase the supply of the available kidneys either by cash payments to the donors or through some other form of compensation. Caroline Rubin, a graduate of MIT, in the article "GENDERED LANGUAGE OF GAMETE "DONATION" " discusses the differences between appeals to male students and appeals to female students to requests for donation. Gamete donation refers to the process in which male or female provide gametes (sperms or eggs) for the direct purpose of baby creation with most often for an infertile couple. The advertising charts are usually boring to most of the college students. They are hardly attractive, but it is advisable for one to stop and have a look. Unlike organ and blood donations, tissue changing individual in gamete donation is gendered. For instance, androgynous donors do not provide generic gametes with men providing sperms to replace the sperms of other men and women providing eggs to replace the eggs of other women. Egg and Sperm donation are targeted through different types of advertisements, and an examination of these differences reveals their basis in reflecting both differential attitudes towards men and women. Different procedures are required to donate sperms versus eggs. Its hard to imagine the necessity of compensating a man to produce donor sperms easily but easy to imagine why women must undergo medical and surgical processes to produce donor eggs. Women also deserve to be compensated for their efforts towards gamete donations too. Personal response There is a law that governs the issue of organ transportation "National Organ Transportation Act" which outlaws the transfer of human organs for valuable consideration for use in transportation. At the same time, the law also legalizes reasonable payments that are associated with the removal, transportation, and implantation of a human organ, and this forms the platform on which the industries runs on. Those who strip skin for sales are "procures" and their customers are processors. Body tissues are not sold for prices based on demand but processed for a reasonable cost. One can agree that individuals should be granted property rights to their donated body tissues. This can help because the owner may donate a body organ with an aim of rescuing a live and denial of such rights will lead to the donated organ been used for other unwanted uses. The physician may also contaminate the body tissue where many of them are proving their untrustworthiness in the donation process if ownership rights are denied. Organ trafficking is both advantageous and disadvantageous according to the reasons behind the act and the individual with that intention. It is advantageous since it can save a persons life somewhere, and its disadvantageous since some of these organs transported without the knowledge of any governmental institution may be illegitimate. One may also acquire a very brutal disease through the purchase of these organs since most of them are not medically proved as safe for transplant, but in the end the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of organ trafficking. Each year, thousands of patients die globally due to the lack of kidneys and the government should consider creating a legitimate, medically proved organ market. This can only be the best remedy to stop the in need patients from obtaining the human organs from the so-called Black markets. It would also provide medical checkups of the organs before they are transplanted to the next receiver and somehow reduce the deaths of people that occur due to the shortages of human organs. The issue of organ transportation needs attention from both individuals and governmental bodies for it to be successful because it poses several but severe risks if handled carelessly. Work Cited Schleiter, Kristen E. "Donors have no right to donated tissue." Virtual Mentor 11.8 (2009): 621- 25. Print. Read More