Medical ethics as it relates to a kidney donation from a poor country

Discussion .1: Would you buy a kidney, especially from a seller living in a poor country--supposing that it is legal to do so? Why or why not, morally speaking? Which moral reasons based on the moral values that you have learned would you give in support of your position?

Healthcare, due primarily to the recent COVID-19 pandemic has recently become a contentious issue within the developed world. The pandemic has illustrated how a weak healthcare infrastructure can wreak havoc on a developed and wealthy nation. Here the pandemic has not only killed 600,000 Americans, it has also created economic hardship for millions of Americans within the travel, tourism, and hospitality sectors. In addition, due to capacity constraints, Americans were forced to delay or postpone operations that would have otherwise occurred. One such operation would be a kidney transplant. Due to capacity constraints, many Americans were forced to elicit services from foreign countries. In addition, regulation has also compelled many Americans to go overseas for their treatment and kidney procedures (Beauchamp, 2012).

From a moral standpoint, it is acceptable to purchase a kidney from a seller living in a poor country. This action is ethic due to the autonomy and beneficence principles of ethics. The autonomy principle states that individual have the right to make decision about their lives without the interference of others. Here, both the donor and the individual receiving the donation must make a conscious decision about what is best for them. Admittedly, the donor from the poor country may be motivated by money and financial gain. The individual may therefore be willing to sacrifice their future need for the present which arguably may not be in their best interest. However, the donor must make this decision in the context of their own circumstances. Likewise, the individual accepting the donation must do the same as it relates to their own health. A kidney from another, poor country, may not have the oversight, regulation and protocols associate with a kidney donation in America. Likewise, the operation, if conducted overseas may come with adverse consequences that will not occur in the United States. Both parties must weight these pros and cons on their own personal scale. Ultimately, through the principle of autonomy both parties must arrive at a decision that is best for them given their own personal circumstances (Boylan, 2014)

In addition, the moral concept of beneficence. This principle, demands that health care providers develop and maintain skills and knowledge, continually update their training, consider individual circumstances of all patients, and strive for net benefit. The concept of “Net benefit” is interesting from a moral perspective. What is the benefit of the seller living in the poor country precisely? This is difficult to ascertain as the evaluation metric is based entirely on the perspective of the individual within the wealthy country. This individual when determining “Net Benefit” may not understand the circumstances prevailing in the life of the individual within the poor country. They may not even care, so long as they receive their portion of the benefit, which in this case, is the kidney. This ultimately can create a skewed concept of benefit, which from a moral perspective, is not acceptable. To mitigate this concept, a genuine understanding of both parties is warranted. What does the individual donating the kidney gain? Is it simply monetary gain or is there something more? This must be understood prior to the individual within the poor country donating their kidney (Colt, 2011).