In medical ethics, coercion refers to any act that ignores the will of the patient in providing medical care. According to Munson (2012, p. 126), in coerced medical care, the patient receives a medical intervention, not by his or her autonomous decision, but because both the law and medical expertise have allowed the intervention to take place. Exploitation means taking the greatest advantage of or utilizing another person or group of persons where possible for a selfish intention. In medical ethics, Munson argues that exploitation in bioethics implies a situation that culminates into the utilization of a patient or persons used for study for the selfish gain of the medical body (Munson, 2012, p. 128).
Transactions involving trade in tissues and organs are a form of coercion. In medical ethics, this act should be prohibited because it mostly involves a financial incentive, thus denying the person the choice of volunteering. According to the justice principles, there is inconsistency in the ability to pay or access medical treatment, which makes the transaction more unethical. The selling of organs is always accompanied by advertisement, which also denies donors a chance to volunteer due to persuasion used. According to Munson (2012, p. 249) Donation of organs should be motivated by altruism to be truly voluntary (Munson, 2012, p. 252). Professional associations have been condemning and criminalizing buying and selling of kidneys from donors that are alive and this is evident in the news from media, which proves that organ trafficking exists between developed and developing countries. The selling and buying of organs have become a global ethical issue. The sources of the organs are usually the vulnerable and poor counties mostly in developing countries. Such donors resort to selling their organs as an alternative or the only means of supporting themselves and their families (Munson, 2012, p. 278).
From an academic perspective, selling organs should be an autonomous consideration but the reality is that there is coercion of the poor because of their desperation. The valid reason against organ trafficking is due to global injustice on segments from a vulnerable population. This is done through recruiting persons to carry out the transfer, transport, receive persons as well as harboring them waiting for the transaction to take place (Munson, 2012, p. 525). The recruited personnel use threats, force, various forms of coercion, and abduction to get the organs. Transaction of organs also involves fraud and deception, power abuse, and taking advantage of the vulnerability. Traffickers either receive or give payments and other forms of benefit to influence the consent of an individual to control another person in a way that is exploitive through the removal of organs and transportation of cells and tissues. Regarding taking the advantage of the vulnerability, age, ethnicity, and gender, social status determines the vulnerable (Munson, 2012, p. 248).
Buying and selling of organs capture many exploitive measures in soliciting commercial donors for transplants. In organ trafficking, the organ is the commodity and the priority is the financial gain for the parties involved rather than considering the wellbeing and health of the recipient and donors involved. The community that deals with international transplants should give a concerted message that it is not acceptable to exploit the vulnerable and poor in the organ markets. There should be programs to address the issue of donor safety and social benefits that meet the need of the donors (Munson, 2012, p. 536).
After God created human beings, He urged them to multiply and be fruitful. This is an obligation to actual children through God’s assigned responsibility to human beings (Munson, 2012, p. 371). Therefore, people who understand this observe procreation to pass their traits to their children. Many people attach deep significance to having children as this has overall meaning for them (Munson, 2012, p. 473). However, some people wish to have children but cannot conceive. Such desire leads to an obligation to possible children through using other means because of a deep need to fulfill what God urged human beings to do about procreation. For example, in the book of Genesis Rachel told Jacob to give her children or she dies. A person who echoes Rachael’s cry in using modern technologies seeks alternative means to have children. However, technological means to obtain children are limited by ethics (Munson, 2012, p. 263).
There is no justification to obtain anything simply because one has a deep need for it. If the methods used to procreate children are harmful to other children or children brought through the method then it is immoral to employ the method. For example, it would be wrong to create children reproduced through technological means that are likely to lead to serious disease or impairment to the children. According to Robertson, substantial harm to a child refers to a situation where from the perspective of the child, life would not be worth living if his or her birth would result to harm due to the use of reproductive technologies in bringing him or her to life. He Continues by saying that devastating harm in the use of technologies arises when sufferings caused are such that it is better not to have lived at all. He says this is different from serious harm to a child, which is harm that does not make life worse than death but also includes other detriments such as physical impairments that are major, mental disability or suffering that leads to considerable pain (Munson, 2012, p. 326).
According to Robertson, reproductive technologies do not lead to harm to children born of the technologies since it is an overriding benefit for them to be born in the first place. The argument about the harm caused by technologically born children is flawed logically because Robertson and other thinkers who are like him maintain that there is a greater benefit of life for such children compared to any detriment resulting from the use of the technology.
Reference
Munson, R. (2012). Intervention and reflection: Basic issues in medical ethics (9th edition). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth Learning.