Commercialization of Transplants
Introduction
The 1983 Human Tissue Act 65 regulates every aspect concerning organ transplants (Schicktanz, and Chair in Bioethics (Ḥefah), 2013). Since its last amendment in 1989, there have been tremendous developments in medical science. Presently, organ transplants are nearly routine operations in various hospitals. Commercializing human part for transplantation has also seen an increase in demand for sperms, hair, plasma, eggs, among others. Even so, there are arguments for and against the commercialization of human organs such as marrow, kidney, and sundry, with both sides of the arguments facing criticism. It is imperative to investigate ethical aspects regarding commercialization of human organs. To reach a conclusion on whether it is ethical or unethical, this paper summarizes both sides of the argument and later presents a moral argument and rationale for commercialization of transplants. Without commercialization, there would be few potential donors willing to give out their organs to a dying patient who needs the specific organ urgently, which is contrary to human dignity. This is the moral argument in this report.
Arguments for commercialization In 2009, a group of cancer patients, bone-marrow donation advocates, and parents filled a lawsuit against the US government. The federal law had banned buying and selling of human organs. One of the parents had three daughters suffering from a blood disorder called Fanconi anemia, whose treatment was bone-marrow transplant. In their argument, the plaintiffs maintained that many patients would die waiting from ailments that would otherwise be avoided through immediate transplants. They further argued that paying people for the donation of their marrow would ensure a greater and more reliable supply of it. The ruling came at the end of 2011. The decision by the US Court of Appeals was to allow the survival of thousands of sick patients in need of bone-marrow transplants. At the moment, people pay donors up to 3,000 US dollars for marrow (Palmer, 2014).
Arguments against commercialization What other body part would be next for sale? Experts have presented their worries, arguing that people from low-income brackets might be tempted to sell out other body parts. With more than 100,000 people in need of organ transplants and close to 3,300 donors available, the moral standards regarding the value of human life is at risk (Schicktanz, and Chair in Bioethics (Ḥefah), 2013). Critics add that buying and selling of human parts is equivalent to slavery. Considering the ruling on commercialization of bone-marrow in 2011, experts fear that low-income people would be targeted disproportionately to sell their marrow. In fact, people with rare types of blood would demand more money considering they have valuable cell. Furthermore, commercialization of body organs will lock out the needy people. Besides, various considerations such as poor prognosis, irresponsible behavior, associated diseases, and old age can make commercialization of human organs risky.
There is Need for Commercialization for Human Dignity Indeed, organ transplantation has been one of the many miracles in modern medicine. For years, it had been an impossible dream to replace a dying or a dead vital organ like the kidney in the body. Even so, this dream became a reality in 1953 when two doctors – John Merrill and Joseph Murray – from Bent Brigham Hospital successfully transplanted a kidney from a monozygotic twin to another (Palmer, 2014). The recipient lived for another 8 years. This success followed years of research and experiments on animals. As much as there were obstacles with genetically non-identical persons, I hail this the era of transplantation as a milestone in medicine, and specifically surgery. With such ground breaking discovery in medicine, why should people be left to die in hospitals because no one is willing to donate their marrow for free? This goes contrary to the field of medicine values of saving a life as well as human virtues of sacrifice, beneficence, compassion, and others. There is need to save both lives – the donor and the recipient. In this light, I emphasize that there should be commercialization of transplants, but this should follow both moral and ethical standards. It is imperative to note that the human dignity concept does not allow anyone to die from premature death or starvation; rather, it promotes both aspects. Human dignity is the expression of Homo sapiens' human content. It refers to the unique characteristics that are unique to the human race. The issue of payment should be treated as a logistical dimension rather than a substantial transaction. Retrieval of a body organ to supplement a dead one is not contrary to human dignity. In fact, prohibiting organ sale only makes room for restricted fairness, transparency, and choice generating fear, arbitrariness, and bribery. What is more, introducing such unwarranted legal components renders buyers and vendors vulnerable to complex philosophies and interests of social activists, lawyers, police, and adjudicators. These make a simple transaction to be a complex exercise. People with vested interest argue that there can never be a free consent and genuine sell of organs. These arguments are ill-founded and an antithesis of the autonomy concept. For instance, a poor but healthy individual decides to sell his/her scare-celled marrow to a rich family with a child dying from Fanconi anemia. Who has the right to disregard their decision? I believe that every person has the ability to make sound judgment after considering all options, possibilities, circumstances, and consequences. Consider this assumption. A vendor is not able to freely express their poverty and need for money, while the buyer is not free to express his/her fear of loosing his/her life or a loved one. In this regard, if the exercise goes on without informed consent and free-will, the whole exercise becomes unethical. Importantly, the vendor should not be the one declared as the offender. The assumption that body organs will eventually be expensive beyond the reach of the common man is unfounded. As a matter of fact, there can always be regulatory mechanisms across states to control costs, as is done in other goods and services. Additionally, socioeconomic inequalities exist across all walks of life and not only in transplantation of organs. The healthcare system as a whole is influenced market forces. Medication, equipments, services, and procedures in hospitals are as well costly and sometimes inaccessible to those who dearly need them. In many jurisdictions, most of these are imported from industrialized and developed nations that mostly monopolize their trade. Since healthcare services are commercialized, why not commercialize organ transplantation? In the contemporary ethical world, the dignity of humanity has been a handy tool in measuring ethical content in biotechnology applications. Many at times, the true nature, the scope, and the applications of biotechnology are overlooked. Even so, human dignity remains imperative in this discussion. Virtue ethics theory is a normative theory that emphasizes character traits. Human virtues such as sacrifice, justice, tolerance, compassion, trust, love, beneficence, forgiveness, righteousness, wisdom, courage, moderation, and concern for the feeble. Virtuous people are able to judge the right things to do, a step that is complicated and difficult. This was one theory maintained by ancient Greeks, specifically Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, and the Stoics (Schicktanz, and Chair in Bioethics (Ḥefah), 2013). Having these in mind, actions done to either save human life or deliberate one from suffering cannot be equated as being contrary to human dignity. Allowing other considerations such as sale of organs equates to saving two lives as well. These are the lives of the terminally ill and the hungry person, who are the recipient and donor respectively.
Conclusion
It is good news for those who were to die, that biotechnology has enabled organ transplants. People should appreciate the fact that medicine is need-based. It is an aid to overcome physical disabilities or diseases and others. It is also imperative to acknowledge that the need to relieve pain and suffering are intrinsic human rights. In this regard, any social policy that infringes these valuable rights must be founded on considerations that are equally vital. Relating to transplantation of human organs, the donor and the recipient are key stakeholders and any policy that ignores their views and perspectives are invalid. Commercialization of transplantation is rooted on the moral principle of human dignity and survival – the donor from poverty, while the recipient from terminal illness. For proper commercialization, there is need for effective and efficient agencies to control the situation rather than depriving the genuine needs of both the donor and the recipient.

References
Palmer, L. J. (2014). Organ Transplants from Executed Prisoners: An Argument for Death Sentence
Organ Removal Statutes, revised. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Schicktanz, S., & Chair in Bioethics (Ḥefah). (2013). Teaching ethics in organ transplantation and tissue donation: Cases and movies. Göttingen: Univ.-Verl. Göttingen.