Two readings devoted to the matter of commercial organization of organ donation represent the confrontation between two different opinions which exist in society. In his How Much Is That Kidney in the Window?, Bruce Gottlieb represents selling organs as a matter which is beneficial for both a donor and a recipient, as well as for the state government. Gilbert Meilaender, an author of “Strip-Mining” the Dead: When Human Organs Are for Sale, says that unpaid donation of organs arouses respect to the donor and thus is a noble form of this medical practice while selling organs turns a humane body into a natural object, a set of “spare parts” for transplantation.
Gottlieb studies the issue in the practical dimension: he shows the statistics of the patients dying when waiting for an organ, rebuts the danger of donating kidneys, and discusses the financial aspect of the issue. Meilaender represents a commercial approach in organ donation, as well as its particular aspects, such as asking a dying patient about “bequeathing” his organs, a kind of moral malformation. After reading both articles, it comes to mind that it is difficult to define the winner in this imaginary battle because its participants struggle in different dimensions; it is obvious, that the practical solution should take both aspects into account and find a compromise between these two opinions.
Respect for the remains of the dead is one of the strongest pillars of humanity in society. Local and international laws throughout the World consider outrage upon a cadaver a felony. Countries that have participated in any war put the effort into finding the remains of their soldiers and burying them with honor even after many years have passed. Dead people are our ancestors, they are the same people as we are, and to outrage upon their bodies is to insult the whole society and its moral values. Thus, respectful treatment of the cadavers seems to be a question that needs no answer.
However, when talking about respect, we need to outline the border which separates the permissible matters from those inadmissible. To call a voluntary decision of a patient to donate his organs a moral malformation is to show disrespect to his decision to help another person.
The operation of an organ’s extraction seems an outrage for some people; however, for some reason, these people do not object to blood donation, perceiving it as a norm. As well, the informational support provided by the doctors is called immoral by some people. However, it is possible that because of the lack of this information people are so conservative about the donation.
Thus, it is really difficult to find some disrespectful tint in donating an organ, even for money. This practice seems to be a real win-win agreement because a donor gets the possibility to solve his financial problems and to help another person, and a recipient gets the possibility to live. It is a pity that some people think that a donor gets a role of a natural object. He is a person who has a right to make a decision and to make a deed that is really noble, despite it requiring penetration into his body. It is necessary to understand that a noble deed cannot be disgraceful or disrespectful.
Bibliography
Gottlieb, Bruce. “How Much Is That Kidney in the Window?”.
Meilaender Gilbert, ““Strip-Mining” the Dead: When Human Organs Are for Sale.”.