Introduction
One field which has made tremendous advances in modern times is the medical field novel discoveries and innovative inventions have resulted in the development of cures for a myriad of diseases that were once deemed as incurable. This has had the result of significantly lowering the mortality rate of people and giving them a significantly higher chance of recovery from sicknesses. The result of all this has been an improvement in the quality of life for humanity and prolonged life for many. Arguably the most novel innovation in the health and medicine field has been the development and refinement of organ transplantation. This technology basically entails removing an ailing body organ from a patient and replacing it with a healthier organ, therefore, increasing the likelihood of a healthy life for the patient. This technology has had an immense impact on the lives of many, at times resulting in the literal “giving of life” to patients whose dysfunctional organs would irrevocably have resulted in death.
While organ transplantation would seem like the best option to deal with conditions such as heart failure, kidney failure, and liver failure, it is not always possible to perform this procedure. This is because, at any one time, there is a huge scarcity of the number of organs available for transplantation. This results in many people who would have their health restored or even have their lives saved by transplantation lacking access to the organs. Animal to human transplant and the legitimization of trade in organs present a means by which these scarcities in organs for transplantation can be dealt with therefore assuring that those who are in dire need are assisted. However, despite the promise which these two means hold, debate mostly on the moral and ethical soundness of these two practices has resulted in the two means not being employed. This paper shall argue that animal transplantation and the commercialization of human transplantation organs should be legitimized since it provides the best means through which the shortage in organs can be alleviated. The paper shall forward arguments in favor of the commercialization of transplant organs and the use of animal organs to show that this would be justifiable practices.
Organ Transplantation
The Center for Bioethics (2010) defines an organ transplant as “a surgical operation where a failing or damaged organ in the human body is removed and replaced with a new one”. Organ transplants can be performed on anybody organ which has a specialized function such as the heart, kidney, or liver. The various types of transplants are categorized according to where the organs are derived from. These categorizations are; human to human and animal to human transplantations. At the present, the most widely used form of transplantation is the human-to-human organ transplant which involves acquiring the required organ from a human donor and using the same for the transplant. The organs from a human donor can be obtained from recently deceased people or from a living donor who is in most cases close relatives of the patient. The other relatively rare kind of transplant is the animal to human transplant. Using animal organs, a process known as xenotransplantation involves the grafting of cells, tissues, or organs from non-human animal species into humans. Daar notes that “xenotransplantation is seen by some mainly as an opportunity that could help overcome the shortage of organs from human donors” (1999).
The major problem that faces transplantation is the acute shortage of available organs which has led to a situation where most of the people who need organ transplants have to wait for long periods of time in queue before they receive their organs. The United Network for Organ Sharing, a US organization that maintains a real-time database of the status of people awaiting organs reveals that over 109,922 people are currently on the waiting list for organs in the USA (UNOS, 2010). Some of these people are in dire need of transplants and without them, they will die. Considering the fact that an average of 20 people are reported to die each day while waiting for an organ, it is evident that the current sources for getting organs are inadequate (Center for Bioethics, 2010)
The argument for Commercialization and use of Animal Organs
The lack of a legitimate market for organs can be blamed for the increased suffering of patients and the rising of hospital bills as the patients wait for a donor to come about. In most cases, the lack of an organ for transplantation results in patients suffering from deteriorating health. Furthermore, Mclaughlin, Prusher, and Downie (2004) reveal that as a result of the organ shortage which is the direct result of a lack of a market-oriented means for acquiring the organs, many patients have to bear with painful medical procedures such as dialysis as they await organs for an indefinite number of months or even years. Most patients end up accumulating really high medical bills with some medical expenses reaching an excess of $50,000 per year as the patient waits for the transplant. This figure is far more expensive than the cost that one would have incurred if there was a legitimate market for human organs. This being the case, it is evident that a legally well-regulated organs market would not only decrease the unnecessary suffering in patients thus improving the quality of their lives; but it would also result in less money being expended to cover the medical costs that people have to incur while they await transplanting.
As a result of the shortage in organs which has resulted in an unprecedented rise in their demand, there has been a growth in the black market for human organs. The desperation that some of the patients feel owing to the lack of organs for their transplants has driven the wealthy among them to opt for buying the organs from the black market where priority is given to the highest bidder. The manner in which organs are obtained for the black market ranges from voluntary means whereby the donor is paid a meager sum for his/her organ to less humane means. Some of the organs found in the black market are rumored to have been obtained through horrible means such as drugging unwilling victims or even killing them and performing nephrectomy on them to obtain the desired organs. Gray (2001) reveals that as transplant organs have become more desperately needed, there have been reports of mass murders to provide the black market with organs. In cases where the organs are sold willingly by the donor, reports of the illegal organ traders not paying the donors as promised are rife thus highlighting the injustices that exist in an illegitimate and unregulated market. The only means through which the black market would be rendered irrelevant is by creating a legitimate market for human organs. Creating a legitimate framework for commerce in organs would lead to a condition whereby the donors would be paid their dues and the regulated environment would ensure that cases of involuntary nephrectomy would be greatly reduced. The cost of the organ to the patient would also be reduced significantly since the inflated cost that is currently experienced is a direct result of the monopoly that the black market traders hold in the human organ trade.
A major argument that has been made by organ sale opponents is that it will result in people profiteering from such practices. This has been the grounds on which the ban on organ commercialization has been based in many countries. One of the adherent proponents for legitimizing organ sales, Radcliffe-Richards (2003) explains that the ban on the basis of profiteering is greatly flawed since all the other parties are involved in the transplantation process; that is the physicians, the medical institute, and the recipients, all benefit from the transplantation. The only person who does not reap any tangible gains from transplant is the donor who is expected to give his organ out of altruism. It is therefore justifiable for the organ donor to be monetarily compensated for their organs should they wish to receive some compensation for their part in the process since the other parties involved, most notably the surgeons and hospital, also make financial gains from this endeavor. If there are laws to be imposed dictating that there should be no profiteering from the transplant process, the other parties involved (surgeons and the hospital) should also provide their services for free. Undoubtedly, it is unlikely that this would happen and therefore, the donor should be allowed to make financial gains from his organ since the other parties benefit from it.
About animal transplants, a major objection has been based on organ rejection. This problem combined with the high risk of infection in the past made animal to human organ transplants very risk. However, all this has changed as new medical advances have decreased the risk for organ rejection or infections by a big percentage. Nairne (1996) asserts that new generations of immunosuppressive drugs as well as improved medical procedures have made it possible for transplants to be accepted by the body with increased safety for the patient. As a result of this, patients no longer have to rely on their close relatives for organ donations since the compatibility issues have been removed by the new drugs. People in need of organs can now acquire them from animals with little risk of the organs being rejected. With the waiting list growing by the day and the current reliance on human donations not meeting the needs, turning to animal organs presents a viable solution that would lead to increased availability hence shortened waiting time for patients.
Counterarguments and Refutations
While commercialization is presented as the solution to the problem of organ shortages, there is a real fear that legalizing human organ sales would result in the poor especially of the third world countries being preyed upon by the rich from developed countries. This is not a baseless fear since as it currently stands, the majority of buyers in the black market are wealthy people from developed nations. Mclaughlin, Prusher, and Downie (2004) in their research document how poverty combined with the allure of easy money makes a poor man from Brazil sell one of his kidneys to a rich Israeli. The risks that the procedure could have to the poor Brazilian are not taken into consideration by the organ brokers or the recipient. While it is true that the major consumers of the organs in a legalized market will be the rich nations and the sellers will probably be the people from poorer nations, the selling of organs will continue with or without a legitimate platform. Legitimizing the trade will result in the poor being given better pay for their organs than is currently the case where they are paid a mere fraction of what the brokers make. In addition to this, the conditions under which organ harvesting will occur in a legitimized market will be more hygienic and humane as compared to the current situation.
Another argument raised against the commercialization of organs is that it will lead to the poor selling their body parts to sustain themselves. While proponents of commercialization suggest that the selling of body parts leads to the donors faring better as a result of the money earned, research demonstrates that the sale of organs does not alleviate poverty as proponents for the same suggests. A study by Goyal et al shows that in India “87% of those for sold a kidney reported deterioration in their health status… and of those who sold a kidney to pay off debts, 74% still had debts 6 years later” (Rothman, 2002). In such a case, paternalism which would involve the government stepping in to help prevent the poor people from harming themselves has been called for. While it is true that the poor are the ones who mostly sell their body organs, there are many instances whereby money improves the life of the people. In addition to this, the democratic principles on which our modern world dictates that autonomy be granted where personal matters are concerned. A person, therefore, has the right to sell his/her organs since they are in essence the property of oneself. The law should therefore allow for a person who is willing to sell their organs for monetary gains to do so since their body is their property and can be used for income generation.
In the case of animal-human transplantation, the major concern raised is that this transplantation results in the risk of transmission of infectious agents into the recipient and the subsequent transmission of the infections to the wider population. These are not unfounded fears as they were the grounds on which Europe imposed a wide ban on xenotransplantation in 1999 as well as in Australia in 2004. A study by Adami et al (2003) revealed that the risk of skin cancer following organ transplantation was increased forth fold. In the study, the organs used for the transplants were from human donors. These findings, therefore, demonstrated that there is a risk inherent in human-to-human transplants. As such, the risk that exists in animal to human transplant should not be used as a basis to denounce animal organs since there is also the risk of diseases when human organs are used.
Another opposition against the use of animal organs comes from Animal rights groups who assert that animal cruelty is prevalent in xenotransplantation. These groups claim that in order to perfect these procedures, the animals undergo a series of excruciating experiments in terms of surgery and drugs which at times lead to the death or at least physical impairment of these animals. According to an article in “Uncaged” (2004), evidence discovered from an international drug corporation Novartis indicates that the cruel and inhumane dissection of millions of primates over the years had yielded no results towards finding a solution for the violent rejection of these organs by humans. While this claim is true in that many animals have to be killed in experiments, the result is organs that are feasible for human transplants. The greater good is undoubtedly saving human lives and while some animals may have to be sacrificed for this to become a reality, it is a price worth paying.
Discussion
The problem of shortage of organs for transplantation continues to be rife and feasible solutions need to be developed fast. While there exist valid reasons for blocking the introduction of trade in organs and the use of animal organs, it must be remembered that without a legitimate avenue through which these organs can be traded, the black market with all its ills will continue to flourish. The current shortages have led to human rights crises in countries like China where organs from executed criminals are harvested and sold off. Such cruel acts are bound to continue if alternative means to alleviate the organ shortage situation are not come up with.
This paper has demonstrated that the reliance on donations by altruistic individuals has resulted in untold suffering and death of patients as they wait for organs to become available. This goes against the very principle on which medicine is founded, which is to alleviate human suffering by improving the health of the body and prolonging lives. It is therefore the moral obligation of medical professions and the society at large to seek out any feasible ways through which the unnecessary suffering and death of the patients can be alleviated. Animal organs and the legitimization of organ commerce present the best means by which these can be achieved. Matas (2008) sums up the case for commercialization as “compensation for living donors will increase the number of transplants and thus decrease death and suffering”. This is a very valid argument considering the fact that the ultimate goal of the medical profession is to alleviate pain and suffering and save lives.
Conclusion
This paper set out to argue that animal-human transplantations and legalizing of commerce in organs are the two ways through which the shortage of transplantation organs can be effectively tackled. This paper has articulated the dire need for organs that the world currently faces. The paper has then proceeded to make a case for the commercialization of organs as well as the usage of animal organs. From the discussions presented herein, it is evident that while animal to human transplantation has resulted in a lot of controversies over the years, the risks are not as high and the benefits that can be accrued are indeed immense. Commercializing organs for transportation also results in great benefits which outweigh the perceivable risks and as such, moves should be made to legalize this activity so as to save more lives.
However, the paper has pointed out that there are some risks which are involved in both commercialization and the use of animal organs. Animal organs bring about the risk of infections and as such, great care should be taken when exploiting this means. Great care should also be taken to ensure that legalized organ trade is not exploited by unscrupulous person for their own benefits at the cost of the organ donors and recipients who should be the beneficiaries of these new measures. By doing this, the organ shortage can be alleviated with great benefits for all.
References
Adami, J. et. al. (2003). Cancer risk following organ transplantation: a nationwide cohort study in Sweden. British Journal of Cancer 89, 1221–1227.
Center for Bioethics. (2010). Ethics of Organ Transplantation. Web.
Daar A, S. (1999). Animal-to-human organ transplants–a solution or a new problem? Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 77(1):54-61.
Gray, H. C. (2001). Cyborg citizen: politics in the posthuman age. NY: Routledge.
Matas, J. A. (2008). Should we pay donors to increase the supply of organs for transplantation? Yes. Journal of Medical Ethics;35:558
Mclaughlin, A.., Prusher. I.& Downie, A. (2004). What is a Kidney Worth? Web.
Nairne, P. et al. (1996). Animal-to-Human Transplants the ethics of xenotransplantation. Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Radcliffe, R. (2003). Commentary. An ethical market in human organs. Journal of Medical Ethics.
Rohter, L. (2004). The organ trade: A Global Black Market; Tracking the Sale of a Kidney On a Path of Poverty and Hope. Web.
Rothman, D. J. (2002). Ethical and social consequences of selling a kidney. The Journal of the American Medical Association.
Uncaged: Protecting Animals. (2004). Korean pig organ transplant plans spark international alarm. Web.
UNOS. (2010). Transplant Trends. Web.