Commercialization of Organ Transplants Many critics argue that permitting organs to be bought and sold is unethical. In this paper I will review the arguments for and against commercialization of organ transplant. I will formulate my position on the debate of whether or not the sale of organs should be permitted and I will defend my moral judgment with an argument. I will also determine which normative theory best supports my conclusion. Nearly 100,000 people in the United States are on a waiting list for kidneys, hearts, livers, lungs, and other organs. Many of these people die each day because the high demand for organs greatly exceeds the supply, and the disparity is widening. Despite these laws and other strategies, such as organ donation cards, the organ shortage remains (Sadler & Sadler, 2012). Some people favor changing the federal law to allow people to buy and sell organs. Although, this approach is filled with ethical problems, including the risk that only the desperately poor would be persuaded, and possibly forced to sell their body parts (Sadler & Sadler, 2012). A problem that has been around is the trafficking of human organs. Despite severe and fine tuned laws most jurisdictions are unable to curb organ trafficking. Nor are they able to provide organs to the needy. There are reports of the kidnapping and murder of children and adults to “harvest” their organs (Kishore, 2005). Millions of people are suffering, not because the organs are not available but because “morality” does not allow them to have access to the organs (Kishore, 2005). Arguments against organ sale are grounded in two broad considerations, the sale is contrary to human dignity, and the sale violates equity. It is argued that a live human body constitutes a vital source of supply of organs and tissues and that the possibilities of its best utilization should be explored. Commercialization should be curbed not by depriving a needy person of his genuine requirements but by making the enforcement agencies efficient (Kishore, 2005). Human dignity has become a very handy tool to measure the ethical content of biotechnological applications, at times, without appreciating its true nature, and implications. Human dignity is an expression of the human content of Homo sapiens (Kishore, 2005). These qualities that a human being possesses are namely, love, trust, righteousness, compassion, tolerance, fairness, forgiveness, beneficence, sacrifice, and concern for the weak. With these human qualities in mind, any act done to save the life of a human being from their suffering cannot be taken as contrary to human dignity (Kishore, 2005). Prohibition on sale of organs makes matters worse by restricting fairness and choice and by generating randomness, fear, and bribes (Kishore, 2005). Vendors and buyers are portrayed as vulnerable because of the unnecessary legal costs that brings in many different parties such as police, lawyers, and social activists, each with their own philosophy. The decision to sell an organ, taken by a person after considering all circumstances cannot be disregarded by others on the ground that it has been taken under too much influence (Kishore, 2005). The individual is the best judge as to what is best for him in a given situation and so long as his decision does not affect others he cannot be stopped from acting upon his decisions. If the vendor is not able to give free and informed consent because of the pressures of money, the buyer is also not able to give consent because of the pressures of illness and the pressing need to save his life. This means that the whole exercise of organ transplantation is conflicting with the principle of free and informed consent and therefore is unethical (Kishore, 2005). The nervousness that organs will become costly, going beyond the reach of the common man is a real threat. Costs can always be controlled by the state through the use of regulatory methods. The whole healthcare system is subject to market forces. Many drugs, many pieces of equipment, appliances, procedures, and services are prohibitively costly and are not accessible to all those who need them (Kishore, 2005). Despite strong objections from the public who desire health care to be available as a welfare measure there has been an increasing commercialization of healthcare services. Organ transplantation is also a part of this overall situation (Kishore, 2005). After researching and reading about all the different views on commercialization of organ transplants, I feel that it would be unethical to commercialize organ transplants. So far the justice is concerned, it might be concluded that the possibility of meeting the needs of potentially fatally ill patients might be increased by selling and buying of organs and can be served by distributive justice. The commercialization on the grounds that the rich are likely to be able to afford medical care is opposed by the egalitarian views of justice. Also, I feel that a human being is not like a car or a material thing. You cannot take away organs and replace organs like parts of a car. A car doesn't talk back, though it does wear. A human being is just something really different and much more sensitive. The Human body is not a thing; it’s a living breathing organism. They best way that I can define my moral judgment with a moral argument would be to talk about having moral principles. At some time in a person’s life, most people pause to reflect on their own moral principles and on the practical implications on those principles, and they think about what principles people should have or which moral standards can be justified. When it comes to commercialization of organ transplants, moral principles plays a big roll. As stated before, some people favor changing the federal law to allow people to buy and sell organs, because this approach is filled with ethical problems, including the risk that only the desperately poor would be persuaded, and possibly forced to sell their body parts (Sadler & Sadler, 2012). There are many different things to take into consideration when it comes to moral principles like the consequences, the limits of conscience, and self interest. If a person is in need of an organ, and there’s one available to buy, that person might do or go against their moral principles and do whatever they can to obtain that organ. Whether it be lying, cheating, or stealing to acquire it. When determining which normative theory that best supports my conclusion, I would have to go with utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the moral doctrine that people should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions (Shaw, 2010). Utilitarianism takes into consideration when deciding which action will produce the greatest happiness, but also take into consideration the unhappiness that will be caused. Utilitarianism also takes in to consideration the actions affect people to deferent degrees. Commercialization of organ transplants might help out the wealthy people that are able to afford it, but what about the poor and middle class patients that don’t have the means to buy an organ? In conclusion, many critics have argued about permitting organs to be bought and sold is unethical. In this paper, I have discussed arguments for and against commercialization of organ transplant. I have formulated my position on the debate of whether or not the sale of organs should be permitted and I have defended my moral judgment with an argument. I have also determine which normative theory best supports my conclusion.

References Kishore, R. R. (2005). Human organs, scarcities, and sale: morality revisited. Journal of medical ethics, 31 (6), 362-365. Retrieved from: http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/6/362.short Friedman, E. A., & Friedman, A. L. (2006). Payment for donor kidneys: Pros and cons. Kidney International, 69 (6), 960-962. Retrieved from: http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v69/n6/abs/5000262a.html
Sadler, A., & Sadler, B. (2012). Can Social Media Increase Transplants Donation and Save Lives? Bioethics Forum, Science and Society. Retrieved from: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=5950
Shaw, W. (2010). Business Ethics: A Textbook with Cases (7th Ed). Wadsworh. Cengage Learning.