Ethics

As stated by Epstein and Gawande, currently the United States allows the gift of organs but not their sale. Individuals are encouraged to give part or whole organs at death or even during life, but are discouraged from doing the same if it is meant for transaction. The US government in short has totally banned the sale of human organs. There are those who support the ban and those opposing it. I take this opportunity to argue my case as a strong recommender for the sale of organs. With increase in population in the contemporary world, so is the increase in adverse medical conditions that require serious attention. Some of these grave conditions would be reversed with transplant of other functional organs. However, people are dying due to the shortage of vital organs for transplantation. It has been greatly argued that if price was introduced in the human organs transplant sector, their supply would drastically increase hence reduce the excessive demand that exists. Many people who otherwise would not be willing to donate an organ will do so in exchange for some cash. It is much better to have a population of a hundred people with one healthy kidney than a population of fifty people with two kidneys. In cases where there are no willing donors to strangers, sellers of the same would come in handy. Lifting of the ban would bring into equilibrium of the demand supply gap that exists.

Critics for this proposal argue that willing sellers are provided with meager information concerning the risks and benefits associated with this practice. However, that is not the case the practitioners provide such people with the maximum possible information on risks involved in organs removal. They also argue that it will develop to be a form of exploitation. This however, does not give a concrete reason as to why organ selling should be banned. All cases of organs transplantation are odd. For example, the organs of deceased people may be harvested for sale if they had made a legal agreement. Though those who sell may benefit from the transaction, they are not the prime beneficiaries. The patients who benefit from these transplantations are people who are mostly abstemious with economical practices and are not the very aged. If this situation is looked at from another perspective, it is a mutual benefit. Both the donor and the recipient benefit from the transaction. The fear of exploitation can be counteracted if the sale of organs is made legal. Legalizing the sale will broaden markets. This will also avail the necessary information to the general public thereby cutting short any chance of exploitation. It is wrong to argue that legalizing the sale of organs will lead to development of illegal markets. The process of organs selling should be left in the hands of more responsible people so as to minimize any form of abuse arising in this sector. Lifting of the ban on sale of organs would overturn the market considerably. Though people are not supposed to trade fortunes for a living, the case should not apply for donations. Critics argue that there are lots of confusion and ignorance that would arise as a result of legalizing the sale of human organs. However, the use of intermediaries would play a major role in eliminating these confusions.

A very big question that arises regarding the sale and donation of organs is why organ donations should be legalized but their sale illegalized. If this question was to be looked at critically, it would be realized that whether donations or sale, the physical effects are the same to the donor. Donors end up having the same mutilation that would otherwise have been inflicted if the organs were harvested for donation rather than for sale.

Epstein and Gawande (p, 4) argue that allowing for donation and banning of sale of organs is letting benefits to have a unidirectional flow. The ban on the sale of organs should therefore be lifted as the benefits are enjoyed by both parties. Instead of banning the sale of organs, their prices should be regulated rather than giving organs for free. Establishing institutions that are wholly responsible of organs transactions will help identify any possible difficulties that might arise from the transactions.

Legalizing the sale of organs will lead to an increased supply of organs. Considering the high number of patients on the US organ donation waiting list, increased supply of organs will minimize the chances of their death. Banning the sale of organs leads to the development of anxiety, coercion pressures, haste and greed. Most people are introduced into circumstances that require transplantation only at the time of need. Due to their desperation, they are mostly uninformed of the consequences of certain operations. Legalizing sale of organs will avail vital information regarding the consequences of these procedures as well as allow interaction with those who may have undergone the process,

Banning the sale of organs is a very extreme decision that has curtailed other lesser treatments that would otherwise control the extremes. Bans will lead to an increment in the probability of total irrationality. Legalizing organs sale will play a great role in offsetting some of the losses that the donor may undergo without digging up all potential gains from a recipient. Instead of the ban, other intrusive remedies can be employed. An individual may undergo a counseling situation before an organ is harvested for sale. A standard waiting period could be introduced before transactions are put in place. This will greatly minimize exploitation where people will tend to sell organs out of financial difficulties in their families. The extensive experience of the real organs market will equip people with all the information necessary.

Though critics may argue that individuals will regret the sale of an organ after they are faced with a grave medical condition involving the organ, the case would apply even for donations. Nobody is fully guaranteed of the outcomes of organ harvest whether for donation or for purposes of transaction. If the case of transaction was taken and the donor develops a medical condition heshe will have little chances of regret because heshe will have accomplished the purpose intended with the cash. Though the government may ban the sale of organs from living individuals, why does it have to do the same for organs from cadavers The cadavers are no longer faced with the risk of development of a medical condition in future. To minimize misunderstanding that might occur in the sale of organs from cadavers, the government is just required to set rules concerning who the beneficiary of such transaction would be. Money from such a transaction would help the bereaved family in offsetting the medical expenses that might have been left by the deceased. Very few people have made legal arrangement in the United State for some of their vital organs to be harvested after death. If people were to be assured that their family would be given cash for organs harvested after their death, they would make legal arrangement on the matter. This would act as a life insurance for the benefit of the family of the deceased. As a result, mutual advantage would be developed. The family of the deceased would get the cash it really needs while the patient would benefit from the organ and hisher life would be saved.

As Epstein states, though the life of an individual whose part  or whole organ have been harvested may be cut short by some percentage the overall benefit is much greater as the life of the recipient is increased considerably. Some organs, for example the liver, as stated by Holcberg, have the ability to regenerate and regain their function after part of it has been harvested thereby reducing the risk an individual may be exposed to. Those who donate kidney have been seen to live normal lives without any reduction in their expectancy. It would therefore be wrong to generalize and say that a persons life expectancy would be reduced after one of hisher kidneys is removed for transaction.

Trapp (p, 132), asserts that organs sale ban is not justified because no scientific researches have been conducted to find out the psycho-socio-economic implications to the suppliers. It is wrong to justify the implications of organs transaction whereas the program has never been tested. Individuals may decide that it is for their own interest that an organ is harvested for transactions purposes. For example, a father may decide to transact one of his kidneys in order to get money for medical treatment of one of his family members. It would therefore be wrong to deny such a person a chance to act according to his will as he will have considered all the pertinent details. Considering that case, critics argue that individuals may sell their organs out of irrational decisions. However, this is not so individuals do not act irrationally always. Banning of organ sales will be denying a person of hisher rights. Everybody has the right to make and be ready to stand by his decisions. Others still argue that a poor person does not have the ability to make rational decisions and therefore should be protected from them. However, everybody has the freedom to exercise hisher capacity to reason as long as heshe is not putting the rights of others at risk. Generalizing the reason that some people might make illogical decisions is not a tangible reason to violate everyones rights. The same way law recognizes our right to give away part or whole of some of our organs, the same way it should allow their sale.

Critics argue that after legalizing the free market only the wealthy will benefit. Going contrary to this, it may be true that the wealthy will purchase these organs easily, but still the poor will depend on charity for such a course. Legalization of free markets will increase the capability of charitable organizations to acquire organs for the poor. People who are in desperate medical conditions can do anything in order to attain their health back. If such people require an organ transplant they can go all the way and purchase one from a willing seller. It is a right to life for a person to be allowed to purchase an organ or part of it to save hisher life. This right is violated when the law restricts individuals from buying an organ that would otherwise preserve their life.

According to Epstein, the main aim of legalizing the sale of organs is to increase their supply to medical institutions. Setting out of rules that govern without banning the sale of organs will go great lengths at eliminating all the doubts that may arise. Constricting of such supply by implementing bans increases the rate of death in the society. At the moment, as we wait for a time when scientists will develop a stable source of organs from animals, sale of human organs should be legalized.