Two sides emerged as organ-trafficking became a global issue following the rise in the demand for organ transplantation which is a highly valued medical practice in our modern time. There remained the argument of liberal thinking in terms of participation to this practice. Proponents of organ-trafficking have this thought that organ sellers have the freedom to do whatever they want with their body and also to each of its parts. It is still the individual’s choice whether to sell parts of their body for multiple varieties of reasons which may involve consideration on the recipient.
A seller or giver of an organ might see the need to share his or her spare parts for the benefit of a relative or friend. Monetary consideration is another argument for this. Those so called spare parts are subject for certain amount of money giving the idea that it is economically good for the giver to sell organs while it is medically beneficial for the receiver. This can be perceived as a win-win situation for both parties (Kishore 364). On the other hand, there are some who are opposing this idea, as they apparently consider the mere observation they had in the actual situation of the organ-trafficking market.
They see the rarity of those situations that proponents have provided. They thought that it cannot be a matter of consent and there is a big question with the idea of freedom and liberalism as stated above whether it is genuine or is just a result of some other factors. Desperations due to poverty serve as one of the reasons why there are some people who are participating in the sale of body organs. If this kind of factors influences the sale, it can rise to the question of the sincerity of the donor in the altruism that is thought to be associated with this practice.
Another big consideration in this argument is the unequal availability of the benefits of the transplant. Wealthy individual can gain more access to this but poor people can rarely enjoy this. Thus, poor people’s participation will only be as sellers most of the time while the rich population is the buyer class (Scheper-Hughes 61-63). The medical arena requires organ transplant but from an ethical point of view, should this be allowed without compromising any moral standards? If there will be an organized system for organ sales guided by legal acts, moderation of the transactions would definitely benefit both party of sellers and buyers.
A number of people will be more interested in selling their spare body organs and making it parallel to the number of patients who are in need of transplant will get their lives and health back so they can spend longer time with their families. This is the real altruistic idea embedded in this practice – being able to save lives. This will also make the practitioners in medical field see more opportunities in responding to the needs of their patients in compliance to their professional commitments and gaining more knowledge in the actual practice.
One good example is the medication of kidney trouble. We all know that the dialysis for this malfunction cost a lot making it more expensive exponentially as the days are passing for the process. Our community then will see the great benefits of kidney donation and transplant since patients will no longer be required to undergo these procedures instead, they will just have one operation, which will, yes, cost a lot, but is highly guaranteed long term relief.
Autonomous choice of what to do with the body remained to be a significant part of this. There should be guidance prior to the procedure of organ selling. The donor must be aware with the responsibility that he or she is taking and should also be aware with the risk associated with the lost of the specific part of the body. This idea of autonomy is similar to the autonomy of every individual in using their body for recreation, doing physical tasks and bearing child. Thus, there should be systematized and standard procedures.
The risks associated with this are known to be varying depending on the institution and on the medical practitioners therefore, there must be an effort to put on the regulation and monitoring of their procedures. Despite this, we still need to take a profound observation on its moral components. The altruism that is in organ selling will provide psychological benefit for the seller as economically, they acquire money. That is one thing for sure. But in the long run, with the risks taken, is this chance comparable to other risks and chances taken throughout our lives?
This question is too subjective for who can actually decide the measurement of the worth of the chances we are taking. But, we can all agree that the practice of informed consent which is done with proper caution with high regards on causality manifests the freedom of choosing or liberation in deciding what to do and for whom it should be done. Works Cited Kishore, RR. Uman Organs, Scarcities, and Sale: Morality Revisited. Law Ethics and Medicine. JMed Ethics. 2005. Print Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. The Ends of the Body: Commodity Fetishism and global Traffic in Organs. SAIS Review. 2002. Print