Medical science has developed vastly to the extent that organ transplants are a routine practice in various hospitals. Unfortunately, the present techniques of procuring human organs are not meeting the demand (Thomas, 2001). A new strategy, the commercialization of the organs for transplantation is a possibility. This technique has the likelihood of supplying one hundred percent of the demand. Nevertheless, there are various points of view against the commercialization of human organs. All the arguments have attracted criticism in equal measure. Ethical considerations concerning commercialization of human organs also require further research. This paper seeks to investigate the nature and form of this controversial issue in order to arrive at a conclusion that is unethical and that deserves investigation.
Whether the policy favoring organ transplant has been a great success or awful failure (both ethically and medically) is a complicated question. Thousands of lives have been saved that would not have been if not for the procedure of organ transplant. In addition, the waiting list of patients in need of organ transplant continues to increase. Many individuals have selflessly given themselves to save the lives of others, and hitherto the unmistakable protection of individuals not-yet-dead has been questioned. Whether dead or alive, the human body has not been condensed to mere property. Thus far, the desperation of experiencing thousands of people die annually in the course of waiting for organ transplant has triggered a renewed debate. The arguments revolve around whether monetary inducements should be employed in an effort to increase organs for transplant.
[...] The aim is to save another person with respect to both great charity compulsions that this intervention calls for (Owen, 2005). The ethical debate is emerging as to whether human organs should be considered as a series of latent spare parts. Up until early 1960s, human body parts were of less value to others. This is because organ rejection signified the failure of attempted implantation. The first successful organ transplant occurred between unrelated individuals in 1962. Since then, the demand for human organs has outstripped supply. [...]
[...] The arguments revolve around whether monetary inducements should be employed in an effort to increase organs for transplant. Owen (2005) categorically states that before embarking on the moral arguments for and against varied organ procurement policy frameworks, it is vital to consider the human context and human perception of organ transplant itself. This framework offers the integrity and dignity of the human body. A common line or argument in the controversial organ transplantation debate provides that organs are not useful to individuals after their death. [...]
[...] On the other hand, a good action is one that guarantees a collective satisfaction to the society. With respect to utility theory, organ transplant saves the lives of many people. The procedure can be viewed as a good action because it offers common satisfaction. Life is vital and saving it represents a communal obligation. References Owen, A. (2005). Death Row Inmates or Organ Donors: China's Source of Body Organs for Medical Transplantation, Indiana International and Comparative Law Review Thomas, C., M. (2001). Commercialization of the Supply of Organs for Transplantation. Palmerston North: Massey University Press. [...]
[...] Various analysts have argued that once an individual is dead, there could exist no ownership rights in them. This view was acknowledged in common law cases. Moreover, it result to the common rule that maintains that human body organs cannot be viewed as property. Furthermore, it is the administrators or executors or other persons obliged by law to handle a dead body have the right to the possession and custody of the body until it is correctly buried (Thomas, 2001). [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
