Controversies in Organ Trade - Essay Example

Controversies in Organ Trade It is innate to every human being to give-up everything that he has if it is the only way that could save his life. In the presence of an ailment where a body organ is no longer functioning, health/wellness is the core objective. Whereas, if in the state sound health but living in poverty, money is the most important. Since health and money are two of the major considerations in life, the rich but sickly individual may be willing to buy an organ being sold in order to survive, while the poor having normal health would be willing to sell his body organ in return for a reasonable amount of money also for survival, given that either’s lives will not be put into high risk of harm. This argument may be viewed as a win-win situation by the proponents of organ trade while the oppositions, in contrast, may view this as a form of human exploitation. While commercialization of human organ is still illegal, the number of individuals waiting for organ transplant will continue to rise due to shortage of donors. To begin with, the legality of organ donation was honored in 1984 when the U.S. Congress passed the National Organ Transplant Act or NOTA in an effort to strengthen the nation’s ability to provide organs for transplant (Greussner and Benedetti 16). The NOTA strictly prohibits the commercial enterprise (buying/selling) in organ transplantation and provides protection and safety for the living donors (Greussner and Benedetti 17). In the U.S., as well as in all other countries, organ trafficking for profit is illegal, except in Iran (Cholia). With the ethical aspect, the net positive balance between recipient risk/benefit and donor risk/benefit justifies the use of living donors for organ transplantation (Greussner and Benedetti 17). Furthermore, the importance of organ donation is no longer debatable as it has already been proven that organ transplantation saves life. It was in 1954, in Boston, when the first successful kidney transplant was performed (L. Altman) and this remarkable breakthrough in the field of medicine surged the increase in the demand for organ transplant. At present, there are approximately 110,340 people in the waiting list for organ transplant in America (Organ Procurement Transplantation Network). The need for solid organ transplantation has rapidly expanded beyond the supply of available organ donors and the most of which are in need of kidney transplant (Gruessner and Benedetti 16). The Organ Procurement Transplantation Network or OPTN showed 26,218 successful transplants and 13,252 donors from January to November 2010. Base on the above figures, it can be noticed that the number of donors is just slightly above 10% of the total number of individuals waiting for donated organ transplants. In spite of the various promotional efforts by the authorities in-charged in organ donation, the reluctance of the people to voluntarily donate their body organs still remains. Could it be the lack of compensatory return that is worthy for the risk the donors will be taking? Because of this imbalance issues in the scheme of voluntarism for organ donation, some people in great need resorted to opt in the black market where there is greater access for organs from persons who are willing to provide healthy organs in exchange for money. Suddath and A. Altman presented the existence of organ black market when Levy Izhak Rosenbaum, a New York City resident, was accused to orchestrate the sale of a human kidney for $160,000. They added that most sales take place in developing countries, where a kidney can often be purchased for the price of a high-end TV. The World Health Organization also stated that though the purchase and sale of transplant organs from live donors are prohibited in many countries, the shortage of an indigenous supply of organs has led to the development of the international organ trade, where potential recipients travel abroad to obtain organs through commercial transactions (Shimazono). It is not surprising that during the debate on the legalization of marketing of human organs held last May 13, 2008 at the Asia Society and Museum in New York City, the result showed that those who favored buying and selling organs went from 44 percent to 60 percent but those opposed inched up only 4 points, from 27 to 31 percent (Knox). On the contrary, oppositions pointed out that organ trade should never be encouraged. According to Cline (1-2), the selling of organs would create an inappropriate commodification of the human body and would lead to the exploitation of the poorest segments of society. If one’s organ is treated like a commodity, it would turn out then that his body organ can be a substitute for his liability in case of a bankruptcy, and this should not be treated as such. Only the desperate poor people would opt to sell their organs, thus the dangers of operation may even escalate their economic instability as they will become more prone to infection and all other risks involved in the procedure. “Narrow allowances for selling would have to ensure that the poor have other, genuine options in order to prevent exploitation” (Cline, 2). In addition to the concept of exploitation, Hudson said that the poor people selling body organ are impaired due to the extraction of an organ and disabled because they are often left in debt and may be unable to be a productive member of society due to a lack of proper medical care, both preceding and following the removal of an organ, thus the poor becomes even poorer while the rich are treated. In conclusion, the two-sided point of views of the proponents and oppositions in the argument of legalizing organ trade, both, have heavy weights for consideration. A viable solution is to link the gap between the two where the problem in the shortage of organ for transplant shall be answered, as well, without bypassing the legality measures. This can be done by providing reasonable privileges or benefits to the organ donor in the form of standardized monetary/service incentives (e.g. a free healthcare for life) regulated by the legal authority. In this way, the reasonable reward for their kindheartedness worthy for the risk of undergoing the procedure is a form of encouragement to the public while maintaining the aspects of legality in organ donation. Works Cited Altman, Lawrence. “The Ultimate Gift: 50 Years of Organ Transplants.” The New York Times (2004). Web. 22 February 2011. . Cholia, Ami. “Illegal Organ Trafficking Poses A Global Problem.” The Huffington Post. (2009). Web. 22 February 2011. . Cline, Austine. “Selling Organs for Transplants: Exploiting the Poor for the Sake of the Rich.” About.com: A part of the New York Times Company (2011). Web. 23 February 2011. . Gruessner, Rainer and Benedetti, Enrico. Living Donor Organ Transplantation. United States of America: The McGraw-Hill Companies (2008). 16-22. Print. Hudson, Karen. “Globalization and the Black Market Organ Trade: When Even a Kidney Can't Pay the Bills.” Disability Studies Quarterly 28.4 (2008). Web. 23 February 2011. . Knox, Richard. “Should We Legalize the Market for Human Organs?” National Public Radio (2008). Web. 21 February 2011. . Organ Procurement Transplantation Network. “Uniting people and information to help save lives.” Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Resource. (2011). Web. 16 February 2011. . Shimazono, Yosuke. “The state of the international organ trade: a provisional picture based on integration of available information.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 85.12 (2007). Web. 22 February 2011. . Suddath, Claire and Altman, Alex. “How Does Kidney-Trafficking Work?” TIME in partnership with CNN. (2009). Web. 22 February 2011. . Read More