Introduction
Selling human organs is unethical; they cannot be placed on par with other goods, they say. Now, is it ethical that seventeen people die every day waiting for an organ transplant? (Health Resources & Services Administration). For millions of people with serious illnesses, modern transplantation allowed prolonging life. However, it also gave rise to several new difficult moral, legal, and social issues. Transplant medicine for the past quarter of a century is facing a major concern of donor organ shortage. The legalization of organ sales is probably the only decision that will eliminate the corruption that has led to illegal organ trade, benefit the economy, and ultimately save more lives.
Main text
There are currently two official channels for obtaining organs and tissues for transplant: free-consent receipt from the living patient; or removal of organs from deceased people. Society is still avoiding accepting the human body as a commercial product. It is stated officially that donors should not benefit financially from the donation (Crepelle, 2016). A third channel is also possible – the sale of organs for transplantation by living people. However, trafficking in human organs is strictly prohibited by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the criminal codes of all developed countries (Gonzalez et al., 2020). The exception is Iran, where trade in organs is not criminalized. Due to the legislation, the country filled the need for vital body parts. Considering this example, the legal market for human organs must exist to save human lives.
Three main factors exist that the regulated organ market has the potential to benefit the country’s economy. The primary one is that the black market thrives despite being illegal, and the prospects of eliminating it are vague. The Global Financial Integrity report shows that the percent of operations with “illicitly acquired” organs approached 10% of transplants worldwide (Kar & Spanjers, 2016, p. 29). Nevertheless, legal marketing might end this monopoly, as the funds will be allocated to government and medical facilities instead of organ brokers. Moreover, the financial reward will create the necessary incentives for people who hesitate to decide which the lives of others depend on.
One more outcome is the increased financial aid to hospitals. In the case of a kidney transplant, money saved on dialysis due to timely transplants might finance other operations in hospitals (Crepelle, 2016). As a result, market competition will spur manufacturers of medical equipment to innovate to ensure transportation and organ transplants (Cherry, 2016). Thus, the transplantation sphere will grow and prosper, which, in turn, creates a need for competent medical staff, allowing more medical jobs. Consequently, adopting a legal market strategy will help the federal budget and dent the economy of an alternative, illegal market.
Establishing a market for organs nowadays is the subject of controversy. It is feared that new regulations can lead to the fact that a person, solely for reasons of personal profit, will reject his body parts for money (Cherry, 2016). The factor is proved by the cases from Iran, India, and Pakistan, where the vast majority of organ donors are the underprivileged (Moniruzzaman, 2018). This is a moral issue that applies to the entire donation system. Notwithstanding, the opportunity to fulfill organ shortage cannot be banned merely for the fact that poor people are willing to donate. Kuenzli (2018) argues that “some risky employment options” as coal mining or other trades are primarily done by impoverished people who are not condemned for this (p. 135). Besides, there is no proof that the argument is practically applicable to developed countries.
Today, rich people are ready to finance the black market and acquire organs, desperately trying to save their lives. In this matter, some scholars believe that regulation can be a key to the issue (Kuenzli, 2018). People with resources should be lawfully allowed to obtain and donate organs. Kuenzli (2018) adds that the open market principles should dominate in this case, where the individuals are not forced into the deal and offer organs willingly. Consequently, the organs will be healthier, for official medical facilities will be responsible for the operations, which enables them to acquire suitable and healthy organs for every individual case. Statistics show that illegal operations cause more severe complications, with overall mortality equaling almost 30% worldwide (Kar & Spanjers, 2016, p. 29). However, according to the Health Resources & Services Administration (2020), 92% of patients survive after a legal transplant from a living person. Thus, sound, newly procured organs can guarantee higher survival rates and longer lives for a transplant patient.
There are always more patients in need of transplantation than there are available organs. As a result, the waiting list for surgery increases, and patients await a transplant for five to six years (Health Resources & Services Administration, 2020). Without a private donor, states Cherry (2016), such patients are doomed to die. Market legalization could solve these problems. The first consequence is that there will be strong incentives for people to sell their organs not only in emergencies and extreme cases related to the issue of life and death.
Second, as the demand for donor material will be gradually satisfied, real opportunities appear for people on a waiting list to get the operation without delays fraught with life-threatening. In the United States alone, about six thousand people who did not have a chance to wait for a transplant operation of human organs die every year (Health Resources & Services Administration, 2020). Another nine thousand deceased after they were excluded from the waiting list due to being too sick to undergo the procedure (Cherry, 2016). Finally, there will be improved access to vital organs, which contributes to equity in society. Therefore, regardless of social status, both the poor and the rich will acquire the opportunity to save their lives.
Conclusion
To conclude, human life is more complicated than any theorizing and modeling. There is a strong possibility that forming an open market for human organs will increase their availability, help save lives, and control medical costs. It is also a more honest and moral act in matters of organ transplantation to patients in need. Social benefits from the resolute decision to legalize trading organs might outweigh all the possible costs. Everything possible should be done when human lives are at issue. Technology and science achievements may contribute to human survival on the planet by harvesting all the vital human parts in the future. However, now, humanity more than ever needs to unite and show sympathy, compassion, and love for its neighbor. If the financial reward is needed to attract attention to the life-saving issue, the world can get it.
References
Cherry, M. J. (2016). Kidney for sale by owner : human organs, transplantation, and the market. Georgetown University Press.
Crepelle, A. (2016). A market for human organs: An ethical solution to the organ shortage. Indiana Health Law Review, 13(1), 1-17. Web.
Gonzalez, J., Garijo, I., & Sanchez, A. (2020). Organ Trafficking and Migration: A Bibliometric Analysis of an Untold Story. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(9), 1-11. Web.
Health Resources & Services Administration (2020). Organ Donation Statistics. Organdonor.Gov. Web.
Kar, D., & Spanjers, J. (2016). Transnational Crime and the Developing World. Global Financial Integrity. Web.
Kuenzli, K. D. (2018). Is Your Kidney for Sale? An Economic and Policy Perspective on the Legalization of a Living Kidney Vendor Program in the United States. Journal of Law and Commerce, 36(2), 131–156. Web.
Moniruzzaman, M. (2018). Against a regulated market in human organs: Ethical arguments and ethnographic insights from the organ trade in Bangladesh. Human Organization, 77(4), 323-331. Web.