Case for and Against Organ Sales
Introduction
Sale of organs has become rampant in the recent years as there is an increasing demand for healthy body tissues, organs, and even body parts. This business is normally transacted on the black market as it is illegal in most countries. There are many cases in support and others against organ trade based on the existing theories about ethics. This paper analyses some of them.
A case against organ sales.
Organ sales are deemed to be immoral and unethical. Based on the utilitarianism theory by John Mill, An action is considered morally right it produces happiness and morally wrong if it makes the individual involved unhappy. The outcome of an event is what determines whether it was ethical or unethical. Happiness differs according to individual’s ideologies ranging from achieving personal objectives and living a stress-free life. Mill states that the sole basis of morality is getting what is most desired by humans and that is happiness (Mill 2016). According to the case, P.Guna shows a state of unhappiness as tears well up in his eyes. When he looks at the scar in his hip, he is reminded of his actions and that he was not able to achieve his objective. He only received half of the money which he had been promised therefore did not fully compensate his debt. In addition, he has been living in severe pain since the incident, he is unable to work full time and he has been forced to acquire even more debt. On the other hand, Doctor Amit Kumar and surgeon Chennai were finally arrested and not able to practice again. Ultimately organ sales are unethical as it produces a state of unhappiness. Moreover, the middlemen involved seems to be exploiting the organ sellers as they take the lion’s share of the money and give only a small portion to the organ sellers.
A case for organ sales
non-maleficence must be followed for a medical procedure to be considered ethical (Beauchampand Childress 2001). The principle of autonomy states that the individuals involved in an action have to make the decision out of free will and be independent of misrepresentation or any form of victimization. P.Guna made the decision to sell his kidney when he was fully autonomous and was not coerced or tricked by anybody. Beneficence is evident as the doctors involved did so with the intentions of giving cash to the patients to support their lives. P.Guna made the decision to sell his kidney with the intention of receiving cash so as he could pay his debt and live a better life. Justice is also served as anybody who is willing to sell his organs is at liberty to do so and all sellers are bound to receive the same amount of compensation. Even though there seems to be discrimination against the poor that is not so because the only force driving them to make the decision is lack of cash. Finally, non-maleficence is also evident as the doctors perform this operation with the intention that the patient will not be harmed in any way. They try their best to perform an up to standard operation and make sure the patient lives a healthy life afterward. Ultimately, organ sales follow all the principles of bioethics hence it is ethical.
Conclusion
Although the bioethics principles justify the sale of organs as ethical, they are ethical only in the medical world and unethical when it comes to the individuals selling their organs. Therefore, organ sales are unethical and morally wrong.
References
Mill, J. S. (2016). Utilitarianism. In Seven Masterpieces of Philosophy (pp. 337-383). Routledge.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, USA.
Inserted: o
Inserted: ,
Deleted:i
Inserted: A c
Deleted:C
Inserted: the
Inserted: –
Inserted: ,
Inserted: are
Inserted: ,
Deleted:is
Inserted: A c
Deleted:C
Inserted: ,
Inserted: are
Deleted:is
Deleted:,
Deleted:s
Deleted:s
Inserted: are
Inserted: the
Deleted:is
