Legalizing Human Organ Trade Discussion Paper

In 2016, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Indian police were probing the illegal trade of human organs in the country. The probe came about after a woman had reported her husband to the police for engaging in illegal human organ trade. The probe resulted in the arrest of 12 individuals involved in the nationwide network of illegal trade in kidneys. In addition, the probe determined that individuals targeted for organ harvesting would be paid $6,000 while the organ recipients would eventually pay more than $37,000. The case was brought into sharp focus by a 1994 law in the country that outlawed the sale of human organs but permitted donations between family members. Other than highlighting the illegality of human organ trade, the case highlighted the ethics of human organ trade by highlighting its exploitative nature as those whose organs are harvested only receive about 17% of the organ sale price with the middle men receiving the majority of the money (Bhattacharya, 2016). While human organs trade remains a controversial topic that raises legal and ethical concerns, the greater controversy is that if organ trade is criminal, then would it be more criminal to close this avenue and deny organ recipients a chance at life. Encouraging human organs availability through trade would have a positive effect for both the organ donors and recipients by giving the parties involved a chance at a better and healthier life.

Organ transplant is an effective medical therapy for organ failure, especially in the end stage, and is widely practiced across the world. However, the therapy is limited by availability of organs, level of technical capacity and cost of health care. There is an acute shortage of human organs for transplant across the world. In fact, about 2.8 million patients are undergoing dialysis across the world and yet only 73,000 kidney transplants can be performed every year. Although not every individual requiring an organ transplant is a good candidate, but under any definition the supply of organs is far less than the demand. Furthermore, the demand for transplant organs is increasing at a faster rate than the supply, and the organ transplant shortage is expected to grow worse every year. Compared to the treatments for organ failure, like dialysis for kidney failure, an organ transplant offers the patients a better and longer life, with the transplant being less expensive than treatments (such as dialysis) in the long run (McCormick, Held & Chertow, 2018).

Human organ trade takes different forms. The first form is transplant tourism in which recipients travel to the donor country to undergo the organ transplantation. The second form involves the organ donor being transported to the recipient’s country where the transplant procedure proceeds. The third form involves both the donor and recipient moving to a third-country where the transplant procedure proceeds (Georgios, 2018).

Patients waiting for organ transplants face a desperate situation. Even if placed on the waiting list, there is no guarantee of getting an organ as 20 persons on the waiting list will die every day before getting a healthy organ transplant. Many of them are removed from the waiting list because of their health deteriorating and becoming too sick even as they wait for an organ.  Legalizing Human Organ Trade Discussion Paper The regulatory oversight and organ shortage creates a situation in which patients waiting for organs are confronted with the reality of failing organs that threaten their lives with the legal channels offering them no hope. On one hand, they are forced to confront the reality of their fragile lives on one hand, and lifesaving organs being available through illegal means on the other hand. This desperate situation means that the choice to buy an organ may not be autonomous or free as it is intended to save a life since the patient is likely to spend more money on health care and even die without a healthy organ. Other than the desperate situation of the patients, the prospective donors also face a desperate financial situation. Their choice to sell their organs is not autonomous or free as the money acquired from the sale is helpful in improving the financial situation (Georgios, 2018).

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

The controversy is that even in the face of the unbearable shortage, we continue to advocate against organ trade that could save the lives of all parties involved. Through organ trade, those who trade their organs are offered financial compensations to improve their economic situation while the organ recipients get a chance at living a better and longer life. In the case of kidney organs, there is a potential supply of millions if not billions as each individual has two kidneys and can donate one while going on to live a healthy life with the remaining one kidney. Unfortunately, it is considered illegal to trade in human organs and yet incentivizing the supply of human organs through financial trade (Jox, Assadi & Marckmann, 2016).

In arguing for human organ trade and financial compensation to incentivize the supply of human organs, it is important to note that the supply must be exponentially increased in order to meet the growing demand. Although compensating for human organs is an effective strategy for incentivizing the supply, this cannot proceed under the current framework. The compensatory approach must proceed in a well policed framework that protects all stakeholders against and ensures that the trade proceeds in a standardized, fair and consensual manner. This implies that the changes in human organ trade should not only be restricted to compensation, and should include demand management, organ chains, improving the collecting procedures, and comprehensive donor rules in terms of consent (Jox, Assadi & Marckmann, 2016).

It is difficult to imagine that under the current policies, begging is the sole legal means for obtaining a transplant organ. This is an inefficient and ineffective system that would be best addressed through compensatory incentive policies. While others could argue that offering financial compensation for the organs would add to the transplant costs, it must be accepted that even if this is true, the associated increase in organs supply would reduce the cost of health care, and the cost savings would be more than enough to compensate the organ donor. For instance, increasing the supply of kidney organs would reduce dialysis costs by more than enough margins to compensate the organ donors. As such, the decline in net health care costs would be more than enough to offset the cost of compensating the organ donors (Clark, 2016).

Besides that, begging for human organs (as seen in the current policies) cannot be considered a low-cost method of obtaining organs. The proof in this is that profit-making organizations would find it more expensive to beg for resources than to pay for them. The average cost of obtaining an organ through the current begging policies is estimated at about $50,800. This cost includes recruitment, transportation, tests, removals and obtaining costs. Compared to the average cost of $37,000 spent in obtaining organs through trade it becomes clear that trade is cheaper than begging. Trading in human organs appears to be cheaper than obtaining organs through begging, at least there is an expectation of significant cost reduction (Columb, 2020).

Additionally, the organ trade cannot be considered an exploitation of the poor. Although it is not ethical to take advantage of poor individuals to get them to sell their organs for the advantage of the rich, the desperate situations that these poor persons face means that they do not have an autonomous or free choice in selling their organs. Trade in human organs involves transferring organs from the poor to the wealthy who can afford to pay for healthy organs. The poverty that poor persons face may result in them not making decisions based on free will, as the decisions are dependent on their dire financial situations, yet the willing buyer and willing seller concept allows the trade to proceed. A poor person who faces a choice between watching his/her children starve to death and selling an organ, is likely to sell an organ because of seeking a chance at a better life (Columb, 2020).

Overall, human organ trade is considered an ethically wrong and illegal activity across the world. This is especially the case for third-world and poor countries where impoverished individuals are targeted for exploitation by human traffickers. While illegal organ trade should be condemned for the sellers’ poor medical care, if the organ trade was taken out of the shadows and legalized by bringing it to a regulated and open market, then the sellers would get better medical care. There is much opportunity for abuse and exploitation as the supply of organs remain illegal. Also, prohibiting organ sales is not only paternalistic and takes way the autonomy of the sellers (Columb, 2020).

Getting back to the case described by Bhattacharya (2016), it is clear that although organ trade is illegal and presents ethical concerns, it meets an urgent need. The current organ transplant policies create a unique situation in which the demand far exceeds the supply. The illegal organ trade ensures that the supply of human organs is increased, and the organ sellers have an opportunity to improve their financial situation. In addition, the organ traders may have gotten it right and should be lauded for meeting a need that helps to save lives. Perhaps, the best solution is to legalize organ trade so that the supply of human organs is incentivized to meet the demand in a regulated environment that protects all parties from exploitation. In this respect, increasing human organs availability through legalizing organ trade would have a positive effect for both the organ donors and recipients by giving the parties involved a chance at a better and healthier life.

References

Bhattacharya, S. (2016, June 24). India Police Probe Trade in Human Organs. https://www.wsj.com/articles/india-police-probe-trade-in-human-organs-1465946033

Clark, P. A. (Ed.) (2016). Bioethics: Medical, Ethical and Legal Perspectives. IntechOpen.

Columb, S. (2020). Trading Life: Organ Trafficking, Illicit Networks, and Exploitation. Stanford University Press.

Georgios, T. (Ed.) (2018). Organ Donation and Transplantation: Current Status and Future Challenges. IntechOpen.

Jox, R. J., Assadi, G., & Marckmann, G. (Eds.) (2016). Organ Transplantation in Times of Donor Shortage: Challenges and Solutions. Springer.

McCormick, F., Held, P. J., & Chertow, G. M. (2018). The Terrible Toll of the Kidney Shortage. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 29(12), 2775-277. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2018101030

Definition Argument Essay Assignment

Goal

Write a 1,500-1,750-word essay using five to seven academic resources in which you argue that a contested “case” involving the sale, trade, or donation of human organs fits (or does not fit) within a given category. A case may include a specific news article, story, or incident illustrating a dilemma or controversy relating to the exchange of human organs. The case does not need to be a court case.

Directions

Follow these steps when composing your essay:

1. Start by selecting a controversial case found in the media involving the sale, trade, or donation of human organs. For example, an appropriate case might include a story in the news about an organ broker, and the term to define might be “criminal.”
2. Decide what category you think your case belongs in, with the understanding that others may disagree with you about the definition of your category, and/or whether your chosen case matches your category.
3. In the opening of your essay, introduce the case you will examine and pose your definition question. Do not simply summarize here. Instead, introduce the issue and offer context.
4. To support your argument, define the boundaries of your category (criteria) by using a commonly used definition or by developing your own extended definition. Defining your boundaries simply means naming the criteria by which you will discuss your chosen case involving the sale, trade, or donation of human organs. If you determine, for example, that an organ broker is a criminal, what criteria constitute this? A criminal may intentionally harm others, which could be one of your criteria.
5. In the second part of your argument (the match), show how your case meets (or does not meet) your definition criteria. Perhaps by comparing or sizing up your controversial case to other cases can help you to develop your argument.

This essay is NOT simply a persuasive essay on the sale, trade, or donation of human organs. It is an argumentative essay where the writer explains what a term means and uses a specific case to explore the meaning of that term in depth.

First Draft Grading

• You will receive completion points for the first draft based upon the successful submission of a complete draft.
• Because your first draft is a completion grade, do not assume that this grade reflects or predicts the final grade. If you do not consider your instructor’s comments, you may be deducted points on your final draft.

Final Draft Grading

The essay will be graded using a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the assignment criteria and expectations.

Sources

• Include in-text citations and a references page in APA Style for FIVE to SEVEN scholarly sources outside of class texts.
• These sources should be used to support any claims you make and should be present in the text of the essay.
• Use the GCU Library to help you find sources.
• Include this research in the paper in a scholarly manner.

Format

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

LopesWrite

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.  Legalizing Human Organ Trade Discussion Paper