Human Organ Supply and Its Relation to the Social Stratification Theory - Research Paper Example

?Human Organ Supply and Its Relation to the Social Stratification Theory Human organs have been traded legally and illegally over the past years since the time it was possible to simply replace an ailing part of the body with a substitute coming from another person. Those who benefit are the rich who can afford to pay for the surgery and the cost of human organs. On the other hand, although some transplants were out of the donation coming from willing donors or were as a result of accidents which allow for the recovery of human organs from an accident victim to be transferred, there have been reports wherein the poor became the victims of this “transaction”. This is linked to the Social Stratification Theory. Those who have little in life become the victims, while those who are in the upper class or society look towards the poor for their source of human organs. How Sociologists Have Recognized Social Stratification People are identified, classified, perceived, and understood in a way that society has given corresponding positions for individuals, races, organizations or communities. The moment a person’s status in society is known, he or she is treated with actions or reactions that are known to be fit for the person. According to Davis and Moore; Novick and Cullen Social stratification is a set of verifiable, interrelated thoughts, understanding, and behaviour among people whereby members of society consider positions or status and identify themselves in one of those categories. Davis and Moore were described by Novick, S. and Cullen, J. (1979, p. 1424) to have considered the differences as necessary for critical reasons. They proposed that inequality characterizes the groups or class wherein each person belongs or identifies him to be a part of. Furthermore, they believe that the maintenance of functions and positions is necessary in order to have stability. From the point of view of Davis, Kingsley and Moore, Wilbert (1970) difficult jobs must necessarily receive higher incentives in terms of higher compensation. The inequality is based on the fact that every individual has a different set of talents. Some talents are more valuable other talents, just as some functions have greater value in society than the other functions. Because of scarcity and difference in value of some talents, rewards or compensation to acquire the people with valuable talents are greater while other talents are offered smaller rewards. According to Joseph Turek The book edited by Joseph Turek was entitled “Income Inequality and Social Stratification”. It gathered insights from various sectors (socio-economic, political, sociology, and philosophy) to clarify the variety of human differences which result in social stratification. As a result of differences in a person’s status in society, there is also a disparity in the income or compensation which leads to the formation of rich and poor. According to Wendy Bottero The book entitled “Stratification: Social Division & Inequality” is about “Who gets what.” It also describes the fact that the present time inequality gives some people better choices in life. “Money, power, or influence give those who possess them greater control over the external forces which affect us all, and open doors which might otherwise be closed.” (Bottero 2005, p. 3). The Demand & Critical Importance of Human Organ Donation A. Gap Between Supply and Demand The Economist (2008) reported that 7,000 Americans died due to absence of organs needed by patients. Out of 10 people who needed a kidney transplant, only one found a replacement kidney. There was a projected growth in the number of people who have to undergo dialysis and replacement of kidneys. 500,000 Americans in 2010 needed the transplant. In the UK, Nadey Hakim, an Ex-President of the International College of Surgeons, believed there was no other option for organ transplants because without it, the patient will die early although they can live longer if a replacement is made available for transplant. Kidneys are the most in demand body part in the world. Rich countries experienced less people encountering accidents, a natural source of wanted body parts. Thus, the search for those human organs has become international. Dr. Amit Kumar of India had been charged for illegal transplants for Americans, Canadians, British, Saudi Arabians, and Greeks. It was reported that poor people in India were offered $2,000 for a human kidney through deceptive means. He was accused of offering people jobs when the real motive was to get their body parts. South Africa, China, Iran, Pakistan were among the countries with reports of issues concerning human organ transplants. 24/7 Wall St. (Berr, J. 2011) reported the estimate of business with human organ trading. As of April 2011, the illegal trade stood at $ 60 million to $ 100 million for kidneys alone. 110,000 patients in the USA were in the waiting list of people in need of organ transplants, and each month, 4,000 new patients are added to the list. The price of a kidney was about $ 100,000. But only $ 800 went to the donor. Hospitals and traders of human kidneys get the bulk of the compensation. In an ongoing debate about organ transplant, there were arguments pointing to the artificially created “scarcity” which was created by surgeons. The so-called waiting list which indicates demand was allegedly fictitious. It benefitted doctors who became brokers and hospitals (PFDebate.com 2011, p.5). Alternative Source of Human Organs: A Market with Supply Supply can be increased by developing a human organ market that can grow with the poor being attracted by the offer from people who are rich. But Prof. Campbell (PFDebate 2011, p.10) argued that donations will be reduced by such a way of increasing the supply of human organs. The motive for provision of human organs should be charity (p.13) according to the VP for Corporate Ethics, Daughters of charity Health System of the West, Gerald D. Coleman. Morally Good? According to the book (Cherry, M. 2005, p.5) entitled “Kidney for Sale” by Mark J. Cherry, in order for a donation to be moral, there should be no coercion and donors should be free to decide with little or no social pressure at all. It is the person who should decide and not the doctors or any broker, although that donor may accept compensation and other incentives to be very willing to donate. As mentioned earlier, those who supply the human organs are the poor in heavily populated nations like India and China. The ideal situation should be by way of donation although with some compensation for those who voluntarily offer their human organs. It is inevitable that those belonging to the lower level of social stratification will be the source of such organ donations, since the rich can afford to live without having to sacrifice their organs except perhaps for a relative who cannot find a needed substitute and who needs it very badly in order to survive. The problem seems to be a matter of policies in various countries – whether or not the people should be allowed to sell or donate their human organs for valid reasons like poverty and the need to sustain the lives of other family members who are also suffering from poverty. However, we notice from the different arguments for or against organ trading that those appearing to be making decisions about whether or not humans should sell or donate their human organs, are not the owners of the organs but the doctors and the handlers of donations. Unfortunately, they have their vested interests whether they justify it or not. It was disclosed that the beneficiaries of these trading transactions have been the “doctors-brokers” and the hospitals. And when there is a donation, the beneficiaries can also be the handlers of donations. What will be needed would be down-to-earth, honest-to-goodness information dissemination among the poor with the assistance of their guardians. They should be made aware of the existing phenomenon about rich people in need of human organs because they reached old age and have to undergo medical treatments like dialysis, without which they will die early. Why is it that those who can donate are not being consulted openly about the truth behind the human organ trading? How was it possible for the total price to be $ 100,000 for a kidney and the owner of the kidney got only $ 800? This serves as real evidence how the poor were actually exploited by doctors who earned as brokers and by the hospitals, because both doctors and hospitals did not lose any small part of their lives, while the poor gave the biggest sacrifice. Yet the bigger beneficiaries were those who were already rich professionals. Ethics must question their right to benefit out of an alleged donation. Is this not clear proof of profiting out of donations? Again, as a result of Social Stratification, those who gained the most from human organ trading look at themselves as more valuable than poor human beings about to lose their lives. Their enrichment in the transactions are seen to be of greater value than seeing to it that patients in need of organ donors and the sources of organ donors will live a better life after the trade. If these doctors and hospitals are truly ethical in their ways by simply being concerned with better human lives, their priority will be the donors and the patients instead of themselves. Thus, government and private enterprises must openly discuss the benefits for the poor as well as the patients. Before any donation of organ, all parties (including the relatives of the poor) should be informed about what they will gain in the end. Let them know what the doctor will be paid. What will the broker be paid? And how much will go to the donor for his remuneration. In fact, the donor and his relatives should receive the most out of the transaction, in order to alleviate poverty instead of maintain it while the rich lives a longer life. Thereafter, the poor should be given freedom to choose whether to offer their human organ or not. An important first step would then be the full disclosure in favour of the poor who will offer a human organ. This should be followed by mutual understanding. Works Cited Berr, Jonathan (2011). “Buying a $100,000 Kidney: a Story of Supply and Demand”. 24/7 Wall Street, April 12, 2011. Available @ http://247wallst.com/2011/04/12/buying-a-100000-kidney-a-story-of-supply-and-demand/ . Accessed May 21, 2011 Bottero, Wendy (2005). “Stratification: Social Division and Inequality”. Routlledge Taylor and Francis Group Campbell, Alastair V. (2008). “”No Such Thing As Ethical Organ Market”. The Straits Times (Singapore), July 9, 2008. Cherry, Mark J. (2005 ), “Kidney for Sale by Owner: Human Organs, Transplantation, and the Market”. Georgetown University Press, USA. Coleman, Gerald D. (2010). “Organ Donation: Charity or Commerce?” America, March 5, 2007. Available @ http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=5329 . Accessed May 21, 2011. Davis, Kingsley and Moore, Wilbert E. (1970).”Some Principles of Stratification”. American Sociological Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 242-249. Novick, Shelley M. and Cullen, John B. (1979).”The Davis-Moore Theory of Stratification: A Further Examination and Extension”. American Journal of Sociology Vol.84, No. 6, May 1979, pp. 1424-1437. The University of Chicago Press “Organ Transplant: The Gap Between Supply and Demand”. The Economist, October 9, 2008. Available @ http://www.economist.com/node/12380981 . Accessed May 21, 2011. PF Debate.com (2011).”Resolved: The US Federal Government Should Permit The Use Of Financial Incentives To Encourage Organ Donation”. Crossfire Briefs Vol. 4 No. 8 April 2011. PF Debate LLC Turek, Joseph ed. (2008).“Income Inequality and Social Stratification”. 3rd Edition Lynchburg College Symposium Readings Volume III. Xlibris Corporation. Read More