Purpose of the Study
Many Americans die yearly while on the organ waiting list. Understandably, organ selling is prohibited in the U.S. despite the need rising and even projected to be higher in the future. Presently, fourteen people die in the U.S. daily while on the waiting list (Crevedi et al., 2020). In other words, organ failure patients have higher chances of dying than surviving in the country. According to Tong (2007), civilians that are of eighteen years and above should be allowed to make personal decisions regarding what they can do with their bodies. Family members and friends cannot sustain the high rates of organ demand in the country. Focusing on the right-based theory, people have both conventional and natural freedom to do everything which makes them comfortable as long as it is incorporated into legal frameworks. Therefore, this study aims to make the Federral Government understand that organ selling in the U.S. should be allowed among all healthy people above the age of eighteen to meet the current and future needs of organ transplant cases.
Hypothesis
There is a need for the federal government to embrace commercialization of organs to meet the future demands as the population grows older, considering that there will never be a large adequate supply of human organs. It is through organ selling that people will get the motivation to donate their organs. Moreover, organ selling will ensure that donors receive some resources which they will use to manage their health in case the transplant leads to other unforeseen health complications.
Discussions and Findings
In general, Congress and the Federal Government should pass a legislative amendment on the Human Organ Donation Act. Healthy people across the U.S. should be permitted to do everything with their bodies, provided that they do not harm others in society. According to Chowdhury (2020), the right-based theory presents an understanding that humans have the right to liberty. People are free to make their personal decisions without interference, influence, or focus on their disability. Reflectively, the act of selling organs to other people is an exemplification of liberty, where one is unrestrained and free to do everything that makes them happy. DeFilippis et al. (2020) opine that the commercialization of organs in the U.S. is a critical path towards meeting the high demands presently and even in the future. In other words, allowing organ selling in the country will ensure that people do not stay for long on the waiting list. Patients die due to the exhaustion and ineffectiveness of the poorly functioning organs.
Therefore, it is worth noting that organ commercialization will play a critical role in meeting the present and projected rise of organ transplants’ needs.
Allowing people to sell their organs to those in need is a critical way of saving patients’ lives. Understandably, suffering from organ failure is an irreversible condition unless the specific organ is replaced. People who are suffering from organ diseases are more likely to die earlier due to ineffectiveness of their tissues. Tong (2007) alludes that human organs’ commercialization affiliates to the rights-based theory, whereby people have the right to live. The ease of access and availability of organs for transplant guarantees that the patient will recover after a successful transplantation, which has been conducted in time. Allowing selling of organs will result in reduction of high mortality rates. There is no gift that surpasses giving another person hope to continue leading a healthy life. The number of people who succumb to organ dysfunction will reduce exponentially due to the accessibility and affordability of organs. According to Tong (2007), the costs of organs in countries that have allowed the commercialization of the practice are lower than the amount that patients in the U.S. pay. Hence, organ commercialization is an effective formula for assuring patients of their lives.
Commercialization of human organs in the U.S. gives patients and donors the right to pursue happiness. Debono et al. (2019) assert that the joy of patients dwells in the effective recovery process. Restraining selling of organs in the country bars specific patients from pursuing their happiness. The buyer and seller’s goals are to ensure recovery for effective compensation, respectively. Restraining people from trading body organs is unnecessary and increases the costs of organs. The available ones are being sold illegally at high prices, making it hard for patients from low socal and economic backgrounds to afford them. As it is now, organ transplant is a practice majorly for the rich because they can afford to purchase despite the price being too high. Understandably, it is not a guarantee that the allies and family members are healthy and can successfully donate their organs. Connectedly, the commercialization of organs will allow both parties involved in organ donation to pursue a great deal of happiness.
Allowing selling of human organs in the U.S. will advocate for quality organ transplant services that guarantee almost a one hundred percent success rate. Khush et al. (2018) mention that many donors throughout the U.S. have succumbed due to illegal harvesting of the body organs. The research develops an understanding to the audience that despite selling of organs being banned in the country, civilians, more so from the lowest socioeconomic background, are engaging in the act, hence endangering their lives. Reflectively, the illegal harvesting of organs is conducted in unsterilized areas such as homes and other private places away from hospitals, hence putting the lives of donors at risk and consequent failure of the donated organs (Khush et al., 2018). Donors die after developing other health complications that heavily affect their wellbeing. Commercialization of organs in the U.S. will assure donors of a healthy transplant procedure that guarantees best health outcomes. Freedom will ensure that every transplant process is conducted and coordinated within the healthcare system. Therefore, the commercialization of human organs is a safety measure that assures donors of their health.
Organ commercialization will ensure that donors receive critical financial compensation for their selfless decision to give their organs to patients who are urgently in need. Leaning on the argument by the rights-based theory, human beings are supposed to receive equal economic compensation for the different services they offer (Kerr et al., 2019). Understandably, allowing the selling of human organs will contribute towards the safety of donors. In other words, donors will receive finances as compensation for the good work and decisions they have taken. For instance, there are cases whereby organ givers have faced critical challenges when their health deteriorated after donating. As a result, commercializing organs aims to give donors some monetary aid, whereby they can support themselves in terms of paying hospital bills when the need arises. It is not a guarantee that individuals will continue leading a healthy lifestyle after donating their body parts. It is prudent to note that legalizing the transaction of human parts is an excellent decision that will guarantee effective benefactors’ compensation due to the decision to undergo a transplant.
Selling of organs in the U.S. will guarantee people their safety in the country and other parties of the world. According to Wege (2019), movement freedom has been devastatingly affected by human organ traffickers. The rights-based theory reiterates that people have the right to live in a safe and peaceful environment, which is unharmful (Wege, 2019). Government agencies must be at the forefront of enhancing security in society. Tong (2007) adds that most of the organs obtained through fraud are sold in the U.S. Therefore, permitting selling of human organs in the country will reduce the high demand market, which will equally decrease the illegal business of organ trafficking. The high market demand and cost of human organs will reduce exponentially, preventing the trafficker from engaging in such awful practices. Therefore, allowing organs’ transactions in the country is a critical platform that can heavily assure innocent civilians’ safety and rights in other countries.
Commercialization of organs in the U.S. will critically contribute to people in society feeling free to give their body parts, enhancing the survival of the others who need these organs. As Taylor (2017) reiterates, people fear to donate their organs because they see it as a dangerous and illegal act, considering that the government is against it. The human organs illegalization is making people in a society fearful of donating their organs. Consequently, a person dies helplessly since their close family members fear succumbing in the transplant process and even suffering afterward if they survive. Interpretatively, legalizing the organ selling practice will psychologically create a mentality in people that organ donation is not harmful but rather a bold decision to sacrifice their interests and focus on helping their loved ones survive. It is not all about selling organs physically but instead a step towards educating and showing the public that organ transplant is a safe procedure and that givers continue to embrace a normal life even after the donation. Hence, allowing organs’ sale will encourage people to commence donating their organs to their family members.
Selling of organs does not affect the livelihoods of the donor and recipient in any way. The rights-based theory explains that people can do anything they find interesting or valuable as long as they do not infringe their right to live and that of others (Tong, 2007). As mentioned above, several people in society have given their organs to their family members and friends and continued to lead a normal life without retrogressively affecting those close to them. The decision to sell an organ is equal to free donation, whereby individuals make personal and informed decisions regarding their health. Ultimately, there is no clear foundation for the argument that organ selling is illegal while people can freely donate their organs. Still, it only requires the donor to pay the benefactor some amount of money to enhance their upkeep after recovery, considering that the individuals cannot engage in hectic and tedious physical activities. Therefore, organs commercialization is ethical because it will serve the rising demand for organ transplants in the country.
Transacting human organs aims at developing the impression of equality in society. As mentioned earlier, only the rich can afford to purchase different organs that can assure their health. According to Bentley and Hanson (2017), the existing organs in the U.S. are very expensive, making it difficult for the common poor civilians to afford if they are suffering from organ dysfunction. The poor not accessing the organs contributes to class hatred, whereby individuals in the low socioeconomic status feel suppressed by the rich’s financial potentials. Bentley and Hanson (2017) reflect on the rights-based theory, which states that the community must enhance equality among all people irrespective of their statuses. Everyone needs to be treated equally to enhance harmony and corporation among people from different spheres of life. Arguably, allowing organ selling in the country will ensure enough organs to serve all patients on the waiting list. Even the poor people within the U.S. will afford to purchase the various organs that are malfunctioning in their bodies. Moreover, the legalization of organ selling will contribute towards class equality.
The rights-based law advocates against intimidation and exploitation among people in society. Tong (2007) mentions that everybody is enshrined within the law to receive treatment of the highest degree that incorporates respect. Intimidation develops when illegal traffickers take advantage of the poor and buy organs from them at relatively low prices. In countries that allow organ selling, such as Iran, cartels exploit the civilians by buying their organs cheaply and transporting them into the U.S. secretly and selling in the black market (Bentley & Hanson, 2017). Satel (2014) mentions that a kidney in Iran approximately costs $4,000, whereas in the U.S. it costs $40,000 to $50,000. A reflection is developed on how Iranian donors are being lured and exploited financially. Allowing the country’s organ selling practice will give people from different continents to benefit by obtaining a fair price for their boldness to give their organs (Cravedi et al., 2020). An American patient who purchases organs will receive a sigh of relief because the current price will drop due to the increasing number of donors. Therefore, commercializing organs will aid the fight against exploitation and intimidation from cartels.
However, despite the urge to commercialize selling of human organs, the practice cannot be adopted easily because of the limited organs which a healthy person can survive without. Recommendably, the law should focus on mandating the transplantation of organs post-morterm. In other words, all people that have succumbed should be subjected to transplant, helping those who are still struggling with organ dysfunction. For instance, individuals diying due to accidents should be presented for transplant to reduce the number of individuals on the waiting list in the country. Therefore, the limited amount of human organs that are subject to transplant act as a massive barrier to commercialization and even donation of organs.
Recommendations
There is a need for the federal government and Congress to legislate the amendment of the Organ Trafficking and Selling Act to incorporate the current situation. The present reality is that people are dying on the waiting list, and the trend is projected to increase soon. In other words, the coming generations are more likely to suffer from tissue dysfunction diseases, hence requiring immediate responses that can save the situation. Currently, fourteen patients die in the country because of organ malfunction while on the waiting list. The organ failure mortality rates are incidents that can be prevented if the government decides to allow organ commercialization. Therefore, the U.S. legislature and executive should work together to enact an Act that can guarantee all Americans’ safety when they develop incidences of organ failure.
Additionally, the rate of organ supply to organ demand remains unequal. The supply is low, whereas the demand is high, contributing to people dying on the waiting list. Legalizing organ selling in the U.S. will allow importing organs from other countries whereby the practice is legal, hence avoiding the cases whereby donors are intimidated and exploited by cartels. Donors in Iran, for example, will transact business one on one with the recipient in the U.S., hence both gaining benefits. On the one hand, patients in the country will benefit from commecialization due to the relatively lower costs of organs. On the other hand, donors from the other countries will receive fair pay for their decision. It is worth noting that the federal government needs to incorporate the commercialization of organs to curb the present menace of exploitation of the poor.
Instead of the U.S. being against organ selling, it should significantly focus on developing critical and bureaucratic strategies that potential donors can follow before either being approved or rejected. For instance, the healthcare system should implement policies restraining healthcare centers from receiving or conducting any transplant with an organ brought from outside and having no authenticity. Doctors should only deal with transplants when they know the giver of it. As a result, incidences of organ trafficking will immensely decrease due to a lack of market. The government reiterates that allowing organ selling in the country will increase incidents of trafficking. Hitherto, the U.S. should legalize the operation and strengthen the policies by which professionals can coordinate a transplant. Thus, the federal government needs to develop authentic bureaucratic strategies and policies which can ensure that it controls ordeals of organ trafficking.
People should be allowed to sell their organs since it affiliates to the rights-based theory, which presents critical sentiments regarding freedoms that one should enjoy. People have the rights and duty to save themselves and others from dying. The decision to sell an organ resembles the idea of saving other’s lives. By giving an organ, it is a guarantee that the recipient will extend their life for ten years or even more. Therefore, organ selling is a step towards reducing the mortality rates in the country.
Conclusion
In summary, it is paramount to note that the number of patients on the waiting list in the U.S. is exponentially increasing, hence there is a need for an amicable solution. The country should commercialize organs to accommodate the increasing need for tissues currently and even in the future. The legalization of organ purchase will ensure affordability, accomodating individuals across different economic spheres. However, this research study’s limit is that despite individuals advocating for the donation and sale of organs, the actual number of people who present themselves for their organ to be harvested is minimal. Public campaigns and seminars can effectively help to educate the community about the importance of donating organs. There is a need for the federal government through Congress to harness and make policies that can ensure full protection of the civilians after legalizing selling of human organs. Moreover, this research’s findings imply that many people throughout the U.S. are suffering from organ failure and are less likely to receive a potential donor, hence there is a need for organ commercialization to fill this gap.
References
Bentley, T. S., & Hanson, S. G. (2017). 2017 US organ and tissue transplant cost estimates and discussion. Millman Research Report.
Chowdhury, R. I. (2020). Humanitarian response for improving quality of life of persons with disabilities: A study on Rohingya camps of Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. Journal of Human Rights and Peace Studies, 6(1), 60-88.
Cravedi, P., Mothi, S. S., Azzi, Y., Haverly, M., Farouk, S. S., Pérez‐Sáez, M. J., … & Grafals, M. (2020). COVID‐19 and kidney transplantation: Results from the TANGO international transplant consortium. American Journal of Transplantation.
Debono, B., Corniola, M. V., Pietton, R., Sabatier, P., Hamel, O., & Tessitore, E. (2019). Benefits of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery for fusion in degenerative spine surgery: impact on the outcome, length of stay, and patient satisfaction. Neurosurgical Focus, 46(4), 6.
DeFilippis, E. M., Sinnenberg, L., Reza, N., Givertz, M. M., Kittleson, M. M., Topkara, V. K., & Farr, M. A. (2020). Trends in US heart transplant waitlist activity and volume during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. JAMA cardiology, 5(9), 1048-1052. 10.1001/JAMA Cardiol.2020.2696.
Kerr, A., Musiani, F., & Pohle, J. (2019). Communication and internet policy: a critical rights-based history and future. Internet Policy Review, 8(1).
Khush, K. K., Cherikh, W. S., Chambers, D. C., Goldfarb, S., Hayes, D., Kucheryavaya, A. Y., Levvey, J.B., Meiser, B. Rossano, W.J. & Stehlik, J. (2018). The International Thoracic Organ Transplant Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: thirty-fifth adult heart transplantation report—2018; focus theme: multiorgan transplantation. The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, 37(10), 1155-1168.
Satel, S. (2014). Test incentives for organ donations. There is no reason to. The New York Times.
Taylor, J. S. (2017). Stakes and kidneys: why markets in human body parts are morally imperative. 3rd ed. Taylor & Francis.
Tong, R. (2007). Feminist approaches to bioethics: Theoretical reflections and practical applications. Michigan: Avalon Publishing, 24(3), 213.
Wege, C. A. (2019). Iranian Counterintelligence. International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 32(2), 272-294.