The Commoditization of Human Life and Body Parts - Essay Example

?APPLIED HEALTH PERSPECTIVE Applied Health Prospective Introduction Commoditization of human life, tissues, and body parts mostly involves different applications. In its most common context, organs trade is one of these applications (Scheper-Hughes and Hacquant, 2002, p. 94). It also includes commercial surrogacy and human experimentation. The concept behind the commoditization of human life likely involves the act of allowing body parts and tissues to be reconceptualized as separate and alienable body parts (Scheper-Hughes and Hacquant, 2002, p. 94). In effect, commoditization is about making money or profit off of body parts, organs, and tissues for organ transplantation or, in some instances, for research. It is about treating body parts as if they were commodities separate from the human body. The statistical figures which relate to the commoditization of human life, especially on organs trade are not complete because the trade is considered illegal and unethical in all territories. Nevertheless, in order to give a general picture of this issue, the World Health Organization estimates that about 50,000 kidney transplants are carried out each year and about 15,000 of these transplants are live donors (GTZ, 2004, p. 11). Some of these transplants would come from relatives, and the rest would be from unrelated donors. These unrelated donors are the cause for concern in the commoditization of human organs because some are illegal transactions. Thousands of illegal transplants seem to be occurring with each year in different countries like Japan, Italy, the US, India, Pakistan, Turkey, Peru, and South Africa (GTZ, 2004, p. 11). One of the concerns in the organs trade is that the sellers are often coerced by creditors or by their poor stations in life to sell their organs. However, studies have revealed that organ sellers actually receive less than what their body parts are actually worth. Surrogacy, when carried through proper channels, is not as controversial as commercial surrogacy especially when the act of carrying a child is not done as a gestational carrier, but done with one’s own egg. This practice seems to be growing especially with the access to developing nations now easily available. Once again, no actual statistics seem to be available for commercial surrogacy; however, estimates indicate that this practice has doubled in the last few years (Gathia, 2008). India is one of the nations highly involved in commercial surrogacy with clients mostly coming from western developed nations. This is the current scenario in the commoditization of human life and body parts. The acts of donating organs or of surrogacy are normally viable medical options; however, when these acts are now done with price tags, the human body then becomes a product or a commodity. This paper shall now discuss in more specific details the different activities involved in the commoditization of human life. It shall also consider the impact of such activities, the ethical aspects of such activities, including the positive, the negative, and the alternate views on the commoditization of human life. Body Common practices in the commoditization of human life, tissues, and body parts The most common practices in the commoditization of human life involve the following: organ selling, commercial surrogacy, and human experimentation. In some circles, stem cell research is considered a part of the commoditization of human life; however, since this practice is not yet widespread, it shall not be included as yet in this discussion. Organ selling involves the act of acquiring organs for a price. Most common are kidney organ sales from developing nations with buyers coming from wealthy developed nations (Rohter, 2004, p. 2). This practice has been criticized for its ethical and physiological impact on sellers who are often taken advantage by rich clients and by middlemen, the latter transacting in the buyer’s behalf and in the process, profiting from such sale. This practice is illegal in most territories, but is growing in frequency in developing nations. Commercial surrogacy is when a “woman carries and conceives a baby for other people who commission her to do so, usually a wife and husband” (Berdugo, 2003). Most of the time, the surrogate is paid by the couple to carry the child until delivery. This practice is legal in most territories, including the United States. Issues on this practice have surfaced with this practice being commercialized in developing countries. In some instances, the aspect of surrogacy is modified with the eggs of these surrogates being used in order to complete the conception process. Once again, the middlemen seem to be profiting from this practice with the higher prices they offer to interested couples and the much lower payments they eventually give to the surrogates. Human experimentation is the act of carrying out experiments or of using human research subjects for a price. In most instances, these humans are made test subjects for experimental drugs or medications. Medical procedures or surgeries may also be carried out for a price. In some cases, children are even being subjected to these experiments (Veracity, 2006). Although, these experiments and tests may often be used to determine the efficacy of certain medications and surgical procedures, these practices often bring untold harm and risks to the test subjects. This practice is also filled with major ethical and legal questions which have yet to be settled. Ethical aspects of the commoditization of human life, tissues, and body parts In some ethical discussions, concerned individuals point out that conceptualizations in relation to the commercialization of organs seem to take out the human body from the debates; moreover, human rights seem to take a primary precedent to the ethical construction (Sharp, 2000, p. 317). Ethicists also point out there is an insufficient ethical debate on the topic of human commoditization and they fear that, in the future, these activities would end up being routine. The ethical issue which seems to dominate the commoditization of the human body is the consideration of ownership. The crucial question seems to be: Do we own our bodies? And are we allowed to sell parts of it? In relation to surrogacy, do these surrogates have rights to their human bodies, enough to claim the developed baby as their own? “Patients now claim ownership of their DNA where even genetic information is considered part of or equal to the self…” (Sharp, 2000, p. 299). The ethical principles of autonomy and self-determination seem to imply that a person owns his body. How else would he be able to exercise and manifest his autonomy and independence over it? These are issues which have yet to be settled within the realm of ethics and within the context of each case of organ trading or surrogacy. As far as the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice are concerned, these can be applied for each individual case after evaluating their applications with each case of human commoditization. Negative implications of human life commoditization As was previously mentioned, human life commoditization can have its negative implications in the actual practice of medicine. In relation to organ trading, Cameron and Hoffenberg (as cited by Satyapal and Haffejee, 2003, p. 844) point out that organs are priceless and are actually freely given as gifts, hence, these must not be bought or sold. They also discuss that paying for organs prevents cadaver donation and the development of cadaver programs. Commoditization placed a price on human bodies which then affected the more beneficial programs of cadaver research to be carried out (Satyapal and Haffejee, 2003, p. 844). The authors also point out that organ donations exploit the donors and reduce their autonomy over their body. The poor donors in developing nations are not adequately instructed about the implications of their actions. The dominant thought in their mind is the fact that they would be receiving financial compensation, compensation which they can use in order to buy their essential needs and ease their hunger pains. In effect, there is a risk of abuse on these donors/organ sellers – a risk incurred from not completely understanding the implications of agreeing to the organ donation. Another negative implication is the fact that paid living transplantation is often carried out under very poor circumstances (Satyapal and Haffejee, 2003, p. 844). These circumstances impose a major risk on the health of these donors. “Conditions are medically far from ideal and success rates are low, commercial objectives encourage poor pre-and aftercare of donors, and inadequate screening for disease increases the risk to donor and recipient” (Satyapal and Haffejee, 2003, p. 844). Cameron and Hoffenberg also discuss how the buying organs give a major advantage to richer clients. Poorer patients can hardly afford to buy the organs and this brings forth a glaring disadvantage in the organ commoditization practice (Satyapal and Haffejee, 2003, p. 844). In relation to commercial surrogacy, feminists claim that women who are at a financially disadvantaged position are often recruited as surrogates. “By seizing on these characteristics, commissioning parents and surrogacy firms are allegedly able to induce women to sign contracts which are either harmful or unfair to them” (McKinnon, 2008, p. 2). Surrogates may also be traumatized by the experience of carrying a child for nine months and then giving the baby up as soon as the child is born. In the end, this may cause them untold psychological difficulties which no amount of financial compensation can actually remedy. Feminists also argue that surrogacy contracts impose restrictions on a woman’s control over her body in the sense that it allows other people to have control over her body (McKinnon, 2008, p. 2). The process of surrogacy often requires women to stop smoking, taking alcohol, undergoing rigorous physical activities in order to protect the growing fetus. In this instance, such restrictions are also restrictions on their right to control their bodies. It is also important to consider the fact that the legal market, even the black market, can prompt the living donors to withhold important clinical and circumstantial information which may lead to the transmission of diseases to the organ recipient (Voo, et.a., 2009, p. 363). The main consideration of the donor would be to get the money which would help fill his immediate needs; he would not be overly concerned with the fact that he may be transmitting some disease to the patient, especially when the patient is not a relative. Positive implications for the commoditization of human life There are also favorable arguments in favor of the commoditization of human life. Cameron and Hoffenberg still argue that the supply of organs is only maintained through monetary considerations and that the act of organ donations have failed to fill in the current demands for organ replacements (Satyapal and Haffejee, 2003, p. 844). They also point out that the act of live donation is a supplement to cadaver donation; the compensation would be demanded by relatives of those donating the cadavers, and the compensations given to live donors is actually payment for the pain and discomfort incurred during and after the operation (Satyapal and Haffejee, 2003, p. 844). Those who support commoditization of human organs also point out that preventing organ trading takes away the best option donors may have of possibly earning money to fulfill more important needs, thereby stripping the individual of his autonomy (Satyapal and Haffejee, 2003, p. 844). Asking for compensation for organ donations is also an important consideration because the risk for actual loss of life is about 0.03% and the quality of the person’s life is already decreased after organ donation. The monetary compensation helps minimize the impact of the organ loss on the donor’s life (Satyapal and Haffejee, 2003, p. 844). The commercialization process also helps ensure that organs are sold to a central and controlled authority and not through the back door channels where donors may likely be abused by middlemen. By accepting and formalizing the commoditization process, the rights of the donor would be protected and the proper screening processes would be carried out for each organ being sold. Moreover, the practice of selling these organs to the highest bidder would be removed; and instead, even those who would not be able to afford the high cost of the organ would be given a chance to buy the organ (Satyapal and Haffejee, 2003, p. 844). For the most part, commercial surrogacy brings forth the benefits of parenthood to many infertile couples (British Council, 2009, p. 1). For many developed nations, surrogacy is very expensive and more often than not, only those who can afford the astronomic fees can actually have children through a surrogate mother. Commercial surrogacy which is mostly outsourced from developing nations allows those who cannot afford the expensive surrogacy fees the chance to be parents. Commercial surrogacy can be viewed as beneficial for both the parents and the surrogate. “For the surrogates, choosing to carry a child for contracting couples is an opportunity for financial empowerment, enabling them to secure a better life for themselves and their families” (British Council, 2009, p. 1). In India where commercial surrogacy is a common practice, the risks which are pointed out by those who oppose surrogacy may be dismissed because India has the appropriate expertise to handle healthy prenatal periods, as well as deliveries for maternal and child care patients. Those who support commercial surrogacy point out that for as long as the proper and legal safeguards in surrogacy are in place, there is nothing morally or ethically wrong with the practice (British Council, 2009, p. 1). The rights of the donor and the recipient can be secured through strict government policies and screening processes. If the ethical issues in relation to surrogacy can be managed, commercial surrogacy can benefit both the surrogate and the infertile couples (British Council, 2009, p. 2). In many territories, including India, the issue of commercial surrogacy has been resolved with the imposition of Council of Medical Research guidelines which help set forth legal and ethical standards which protect patient rights. Conclusion The above discussion points out important details about the commoditization of human life, body parts, and tissues. It covers mainly organ trading or selling, commercial surrogacy, and human experimentation. These three activities have been discussed by various ethicists and advocates based on ethical and legal considerations. The main arguments against the commoditization of human life revolves around the argument that many individuals in developing nations are often prompted by their financial difficulties to agree to be the donors or surrogates. Their financial difficulties often prevent them from protecting their right to determine what happens to their bodies. Those who support commoditization argue that it helps benefit both the donors/surrogates and the recipients/infertile couples because both their needs are met in the end. The above discussion expresses the current inadequacy of the processes involving commoditization of human life and body parts. Although, the process can indeed benefit all the parties in the commoditization process, there are important details which are not adequately secured to protect the rights of all parties involved. At present many organ donors in developing countries are receiving only minimal amounts for their organs. They are being abused by opportunistic middlemen. And they are not properly informed of the risks they are incurring as a result of the organ donation. For the recipient, the hidden risks are also not expressed to them. In the end, these are details which need to be settled before the process of commoditization can indeed benefit all parties involved. Works Cited Berdugo, L. (2003) Commercial Surrogacy, University of Carleton, viewed 10 March 2011 from http://chat.carleton.ca/~lberdugo/ British Council (2009) Surrogacy in India: Commercial surrogacy in India is morally acceptable, Debating Matters India, viewed 10 March 2011 from www.britishcouncil.org/india-projects-icd-surrogacy.doc Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) (2004) Coercion in the Kidney Trade?: A background study on trafficking in human organs worldwide, viewed 10 March 2011 from http://www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-organ-trafficking-2004.pdf Gathia, J. (2008) Surrogate mothers: Outsourcing pregnancy in India, Merinews, viewed 10 March 2011 from http://www.merinews.com/article/surrogate-mothers-outsourcing-pregnancy-in-india/136421.shtml McKinnon (2008) Chapter 12: Gender; Commercial Surrogacy, Oxford University Press, viewed 10 March 2011 from http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199217007/01student/cases/mckinnon_ch12_cases.pdf Rohter, L. (2004) The Organ trade: A Global Black Market; Tracking the Sale of a Kidney On a Path of Poverty and Hope, New York Times, viewed 10 March 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/world/organ-trade-global-black-market-tracking-sale-kidney-path-poverty-hope.html?pagewanted=1 Satyapal, K. & Haffejee, A. (2003) Commerce in organs — an ethical dilemma, SAMJ, volume 93, number 11, viewed 10 March 2011 from http://www.samj.org.za/index.php/samj/article/viewFile/2404/1658 Scheper-Hughes, N., Wacquant, L. (2002) Commodifying bodies, California: Sage Publications Sharp, L. (2000) The Commodification of the Body, Annu. Rev. Anthropol., volume 29: pp. 287–328 Voo, T., Campbell, A., De Castro, L. (2009) The Ethics of Organ Transplantation: Shortages and Strategies, Annals Academy of Medicine, volume 38, number 4 Veracity, D. (2006) Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1833-1965), Natural News, viewed 10 March 2011 from http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html Read More