The ethics of allowing organ buying and selling for transplantation

Buy and Sell Organs for Transplants:

The consideration of the possible negative socio-ethical repercussions of allowing people to buy and sell their non-vital body organs for transplant fortifies the argument of all opponents to the proposition. As stated in the U.S. Constitution, human beings are created equal and given the un-separable rights to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. While in the pursuit of these rights, the American society has learnt that the end does not always justify the means and as such, necessary legislation has been instituted to help protect minorities from majorities, the poor from the wealthy, and the weak from the strong. A society in which people could buy and sell organs for transplant would further ruin the pursuit for equality and frustrate the liberty of generosity needed for living a happy life.

Opposing the proposition does not mean that one believes society bears no duty to preserve life and relieve human suffering, rather it is a stand on the principle that longer life cannot be pursued by any means whatsoever. According to statistics, more than 100,000 individuals find themselves in need of life-saving organ transplants on an annual basis (Andre & Velasquez, n.d.). While biomedical breakthroughs have greatly increased the capacity of medical institutions to perform successful transplants, most healthy people are unwilling to donate their non-vital organs. As such, an average of 18 such individuals ends up dying each day for lack of an available and matching organ donor ("Statistics," n.d.).

Narrowing the huge gap between the need and availability of transplant organs is the key underlying argument for those advocating the right to sell and buy transplant organs. Proponents argue that money would definitely prove sufficient incentive for many people to sell organs to improve their financial situation. They argue this would greatly reduce the donor-recipient gap and the unnecessary deaths due to lack of organ transplants.

While it seems like the adoption of such a proposition would ease the life and happiness of many organ donors and desperate recipients alike, it is important to note the cons that outweigh the pros of such a reality. In a capitalistic society like America's, simple economics would immediately determine who would have the ability to buy organs and who would be motivated to sell their organs. An unequal distribution of wealth would gradually transform into an unequal distribution of health benefits and compulsion to donate organs. Human dignity would be jeopardized in a society where the wealthy could readily pay and harvest healthy organs from the poor.

It's for this reason that the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (NOTA) banned the buying and selling of organs. NOTA specifically included language that made it a crime for individuals to knowingly purchase or transfer any human organ. The Senate Report that accompanied NOTA also banned transplant of organs on the basis that human bodies should not be regarded as commodities (Mayes, 2003). The adoption of such a proposition would promptly generate a multi-billion dollar organs transplant market that would tempt financially struggling health care practitioners and institutions. The underinsured and uninsured would find themselves coerced to donate non-vital organs to help cover their medical bills.