COMMODIFICATION OF ORGAN DONATION
There are thousands of patients around the world who require organ donations every day. Some of the main organs in demand include the heart, kidney, cornea, and lungs. With the advancement of technology in medicine and surgery, it is increasingly possible to undertake transplants of almost all organs. Many people may afford the most expensive surgeons around the world but they cannot buy organs when sick; it is illegal. Illegalization of the sale of organs in the United or any payments for organs was implemented through the Human Organs Transplant Act of 1989. The claims against the sale of organs are largely based on “commodification” of body organs. Commodification is a key term used in the paper which means the transformation to commodities for trade or commerce. In other words, there are fears that the organs would be treated as “mere commodities.” Though the commodification of organs would lead to sale or purchase of organs, it would have overwhelming socio-economic and health benefits to the communities and thus is a prudent approach to adopt.
The background of the illegalization of the sale of organs in the United States
The creation of a market for the organs is illegalized under the Human Organs Transplant Act of 1989. However, it does not mean that the illegalization has curbed all the actions such as harvesting of organs on humans. In China, for instance, there are claims that the government harvests organs from the inmates who are executed and do not have kinsmen to claim their bodies (Yacoubian, Dargham & Khauli, 2018). Illegal practices such as the sale of organs in the black market is a commonplace. Human trafficking is a common element that is associated with the harvesting of organs from kidnapped or trafficked persons.
Additionally, the illegalization of the sale of organs can borrow from the concepts of Marijuana. During the illegalization era, the illegal market had high volumes of unascertained quality of marijuana (Shaikh & Bruce, 2016). It was easy to cause damage or harm on the users. However, the legalization of marijuana has enabled the government to control the quality of the marijuana consumed. Though marijuana is a commodity that cannot be equated with the body organs, there has been some systemic changes since the legalization of recreational use of marijuana. In most states, the volumes of illegal use of marijuana has drastically reduced after the legalization of the commodity. Equally, the legalization of payments for organ donation will create a system that can be regulated, reviewed, assessed, and structured by the government.
The challenge of organ donations
The challenge of organ donation is a common health issue around the world. Most nations have illegalized the sale of organs. The main argument is that the sale of organs will lead to commodification of human organs. Arguably, the prevailing rules is that one ought to donate their organs rather than give them up for free. In such contexts, the donors feel short-changed (Shaikh & Bruce, 2016). They only give their organs without having anything in return. Incentives such as the payments for the organs donated will be a sufficient consideration for the organ donor. Losing an organ is a risk that should not go unrewarded. Though the practice of commodification may arise as a result, the most beneficial outcome will lean towards sufficient organ available for donation in cases of need by the patients.
The nature of human organs will work against human trafficking and organ harvesting in humans. Not all organs from an individual will fit into another individual in need of such organs. Arguably, a practice of human trafficking and kidnapping to harvest organs will require high level of medical expertise (Potter, 2017). Only a qualified surgeon can remove a kidney or a cornea from a donor to a patient. Even when criminals contract or force such doctors to work, they do not have anywhere to take the organs. The recipients of such organs must match with the donors. In other words, organ matching is a complex process the requires high levels of expertise. Organs harvested on an individual will not necessarily match the ones needed by a patient. Thus, the cartels or criminals who may commodify the organ donation will run out of market for their commodities. They will not have a guaranteed market and hardly have any buyer. Thus, commodification will not harm the organ donation market through the resultant crime.
There are challenges that are expensive to manage even with the available organ donations. The gap between the demand and supply of the required body organs is a challenge that is common among many people. Most people undergo hemodialysis due to lack of organs. In the United States, for instance, a year on hemodialysis will cost around $ 72,000 (Yacoubian, Dargham & Khauli, 2018). The cost will recur for the rest of the life of the patient. If there are enough organs, which can only occur through commodification, then such costs will be eliminated. There will only be a one-off cost of the transplant.
There are numerous socio-economic benefits associated with the context above. The patient who has had a transplant of the kidney is healthier and more productive than the one who constantly requires the hemodialysis (Schwartz, 2017). Such productivity will have a great impact in improving the socio-economic welfare of the said individual. Arguably, when one is economically productive, there is an increase in income levels and productivity in the economy. There is an increase in the taxes collected which results into an overall increase in productivity of a society.
Further, there are many doctors, nurses, and related healthcare professionals who are engaged in the provision of the hemodialysis. Such personnel will be freed up from the routine exercises when there are enough organs for sale (Andorno, 2017). In such contexts, the doctors and nurses will have a greater opportunity to focus on other patients. Arguably, the process will lead to an increase in the overall efficiency of the hospitals. The net economic effect will be an increase in the overall productivity levels among the healthcare professionals. In the same breadth, the hospitals will engage doctors and nurses on shorter hours or ensure that such professionals serve more patients. Such conditions will improve the overall health of the communities. The resulting socio-economic benefits will tremendously improve the economy.
One of the concepts highlighted above is the quality of life of the people. If there are sufficient donations, which can only occur when there is sufficient consideration on the part of the donor, then the donations can increase to meet the levels of demand (George, 2017). Arguably, the increase in the donations will eliminate deaths that result from lack of organs. Some of the organs such as corneas, for instance, mean that the patient cannot see. Lack of sight lowers the overall productivity and activities that an individual may engage in. If there is regulated commodification of such organs, organ donors adequately meet the demand for the commodities.
Statistics behind the current organ donation practices
There is an increasing number of patients who require organ donations in the United States. In 2018, for instance, at least 100,000 patients needed different organs donated to them (Yacoubian, Dargham & Khauli, 2018). Only more than a third of those persons underwent transplants. The main cause of the lack of more than 72,000 donors in the United States is lack of consideration or payment to the donors. With the deteriorating health of the communities around the United States, there is a potential increase in the demand for organs in the country. However, there is no commensurate increase in the organ donation practices in the country. Thus, the current practices will only lead to more discrepancy between the demand and the supply of the organs. Thus, more people will suffer emotionally and experience poor health due to the current laws. The only solution, therefore, is the commodification of organs as discussed in the context herein below.
There are organs that can be provided by a living or a deceased donor. A heart or a lung can only be donated by a deceased donor. However, under the current laws, it can only be implemented when the donor had expressly stated that they wish to donate the organs (Schwartz, 2017). Other organs that can be donated by a living donor includes a kidney, a part of a liver, parts of intestines, and parts of the pancreas. A dead donor can donate all or parts of the organs above, hands, faces, and corneas. The commodification of organ donation will benefit the donors’ estate or dependents. Some of the donors may have persons who are living in poverty and burying them with their organs will not lead to any economic benefit. The commodification of organs, however, will lead to economic advantage to the estate or the dependents of a deceased person.
Arguments on the value of altruism
Critics believe that “altruism is sufficient motivation” to spur the actions of organ donation and argue against monetary compensation for organs donated. There are long waiting times for the recipients of organs in the United States. There is no sufficient altruism to motivate the organ donors (Yacoubian, Dargham & Khauli, 2018). Additionally, there are health challenges or risks that are associated with organ donation. The donors have to bear the risk alone. Such conditions discourage the donors who feel that the donation is a risky process that may end up costing them their jobs or means of gaining incomes. In such contexts, many potential donors refrain from donating organs and the people recipients continue suffering in deep mental anguish. They do not know when a donor will show up and their lives are always at risk.
Altruism is voluntary and personal. It cannot be compelled or enforced. There are no incentives that can be provided to alleviate the situation in cases where the donors refrain from providing the organs (Shaikh & Bruce, 2016). Continued opposition to the commodification of organ sale harms the overall health welfare of the donors. The queues for organ donation recipients will continue to increase. There will be a decrease of donors too despite the increase in the number of organs that can be donated. All these elements will precipitate from the lack of monetary compensation to the donors.
There are arguments against the commodification of organs. One of the central arguments is that the organs of the body are priceless. A price cannot be attached to them and suffice in providing their requisite value (De Castro, 2013). Arguably, the commodification of organs amounts to reducing them to things that can be bought or sold at a set price. Thus, the opponents of the commodification and the supporters of the provisions of the Human Organs Transplant Act of 1989 argue that commodification devalues human dignity and the value of bodily organs.
The argument above is legitimate. There is no value that can suffice for the organs of a human. However, the main claim of commodification is sufficient compensation for the donor through monetary approaches. The concept is that though money cannot buy an organ, it can provide sufficient consideration for the donor. It is aimed to serve as an incentive and as a partial consideration to the donor rather than a pay (Shaikh & Bruce, 2016). Even then, the emerging concept is that the organ is a commodity “that can be sold or bought.” Such circumstances do not necessarily mean that there is a price that defines an organ or part of a human body. Thus, it is impossible to quantify the total value of human body in monetary terms using the concept above.
Another argument against the commodification of organs is altruism. The approach is based on the need to act selflessly. The argument goes that the society ought to be encouraged to act selflessly for the interest of others (Potter, 2017). In other words, the absence of pay should not discourage one to donate an organ. The need to act selflessly ought to be a virtue that flows from within. Such approaches were the foundation of the illegalization of the sale of organs under the Human Organs Transplant Act of 1989.
The concept above is positive. Altruism ought to be encouraged and supported as a virtue within the population. However, the concept does not capture the hallmarks of the health welfare of the donor. The donor’s health and socio-economic status is affected after donating the organ. If the donation is purely driven by altruism, then there is insufficient capacity to bring adequate people on board to donate organs (De Castro, 2013). In other words, altruism does not provide for the holistic interest of the donor. It will only lead to a discrepancy in the number of the organs donated. The resulting practice will occasion great emotional and health challenge to the patients. They can only rely on the altruism of the donors.
References to human dignity and commodification
Additionally, money’s worth cannot equate to human dignity. The opponents of commodification argue that putting a price on human organs breaches the human dignity by making it available at a stated price (De Castro, 2013). However, human life is priceless, they argue, and human bodies have priceless dignities too. Thus, they comment that human bodies or parts of human bodies ought not to have prices attached to them. All parts of a human body combine to define and determine human dignity of the individuals.
The argument above is prudently premised on human dignity. Human dignity cannot have a price attached to it. However, there are no legal limitations for sale of human parts such as the human hair. They still constitute part of the human body. Buying one’s hair does not lower the dignity of the seller or the buyer (De Castro, 2013). Equally, the sale of the organs will not affect the dignities of the buyers or the sellers of the organs. It will only provide a platform where the overall life and welfare of the people is upheld, protected, and safeguarded. It will end preventable deaths or unwarranted loss of productivity with the society.
The errors or shortcomings associated with the commodification of body parts has other supporting arguments. Arguably, receiving monetary compensation in exchange of a body organ means that the body or part of it has a price (De Castro, 2013). Thus, the resultant argument is that the payments for organs defy the dignity of the human life and human bodies. However, the opponents of commodification advocate for organ donation as the only reasonable way to enhance the provision of organs between a donor and a recipient.
The argument against commodification described above is flawed. Though payment amounts to commodification, not all forms of payment equate to a transaction. Thus, it is not prudent to conclude that the payment in exchange of an organ will amount to commodification of the said organ. Money cannot define the characterization of an act in its entirety. A person who sells a kidney to an unknown foreigner for $ 40,000 is different from a similar one selling it for $ 2500 to a neighbor. In the latter, the attachment, dependency, and friendship may be some of the reasons behind the donation of the organ. The two contexts are different. They are explained in detail in the context below.
Commodification can be interpreted in terms of the opportunity cost rather than the express value of a human organ. The need for the payment of $ 2,500 can be reflected through the health challenges that the donor goes through. Instances such as the opportunity costs, which is quantifiable, can inform the change setting of the price of the organ (De Castro, 2013). Thus, the payment is not for the organ, which can be interpreted as negative commodification, but for the opportunity cost in a commercial world that the donor foregone to donate the organ. In such circumstances, it is only reasonable that the recipient pays some adequate fees to compensate the donor of the organ.
Further references against commodification emerges based on the argument that it is against a practice that might occur. The attachment of monetary value to human organs is illegal and cannot suffice to equate for human dignity (Shaikh & Bruce, 2016). Commodification will further mean that the forces of demand and supply will determine the health welfare of the people. Thus, it may mean that people may suffer or even die when they supply of the commodities is low or they cannot afford to buy the organs. The approach, therefore, lowers human dignity.
The context above is out of touch with reality. It presumes that organ sale does not occur in the illegal market termed as the “black market.” Such illegal sale of organs is thriving in the illegal market (Shaikh & Bruce, 2016). Additionally, the argument presupposes that there is sufficient altruism to provide enough organs to all the people around the world who need organ donation. The argument, however, is flawed since there is an increasingly high number of patients who die due to lack of organs.
Additionally, humans have been subject to forces of demand and supply since time immemorial. Low supply of commodities such as food has led to deaths of thousands around the world. Commodities such as medicine are critical to the health of individuals but have a price. In the developing world and partially in the United States, there are people who die due to lack of medical attention. Others may have permanent health challenges due to lack of timely interventions such as medical procedures or lack of medicine. There is no argument related to human dignity on such concepts. Thus, the biased interpretation of human dignity associated with organ donation is solely aimed at preventing organ donation. It is unwise to continually deny medical attention to people through illegalization of payments to the organ donors.
The commodification ideals
The ideals of commodification of organ sale ought to provide sufficient interest of the donors and the sellers. It is only through adequate regulation that the government can monitor and regulate the prices of the organs. In such cases, the prices will be set in such conditions that they do not create a discrepancy between the donor and the recipient (Shaikh & Bruce, 2016). Arguably, economic factors have already created an unequal society that is defined by the capitalistic world. However, regulation of the organ donation processes will ensure that the prices are set and regulated by the government. There would be no middleman who will unduly benefit from the process.
The argument against commodification of the sale of organs is premised on the arguments that it would create an unequal society. The wealthy buyers would be the only persons capable of buying the organs. However, in the current contexts, the illegal market is already thriving under the same principles (Potter, 2017). The legal approach would be that the government would purchase the needed organs for the poor buyers. Such a concept would ease the commodification of organs.
Conclusion
The numbers of Americans who suffer from organ malfunction is increasing. Emotional agony is an added challenge to more than 100,000 people in the United States each year who require organ donations. It is the high time that the government allowed for the commodification of organs. Such a platform will allow for the regulation of the practice and curb all cases of illegal organ sale. Though individuals are prohibited to put a price on their organs, the regulation will enhance the prices, the quality, and the safety of the processes through a regulated approach. The illegal market will not harm the practice above. Scientific elements such as organ matching will render it ineffective and uneconomical to harvest organs from individuals for sale. Thus, the commodification of organs will be driven by the demand and the specific health requirements of the patient’s body. The approach of commodification will further reduce the overall operational costs for hospitals. The doctors, nurses, and healthcare professionals will have less routine tasks to undertake. The patients will have a one-off payment rather than the cyclic processes that require hefty capital investment. Improved health of the patients will be another advantage accrued from the commodification of organs. All these processes will lead to improvement in the health, socio-economic status of the patient, and financial advantage to the government. It is prudent for the government to legalize the sale of organs in the nearest future.
References
Andorno, R. (2017). Buying and selling organs: issues of commodification, exploitation and
human dignity. Journal of Trafficking and Human Exploitation, 1(2), 119-127.
De Castro, L. D. (2013). Commodification and exploitation: arguments in favour of compensated
organ donation. Journal of medical ethics, 29(3), 142-146.
George, S. K. (2017). The unfair trade: Why organ sale is indefensible. Indian Journal of
Medical Ethics, 2(3), 153-159.
Potter, J. (2017). Revamping the United States Organ Donation System: An Ethical Justification
for Compensated Live Organ Donation.
Shaikh, S. S., & Bruce, C. R. (2016). An ethical appraisal of financial incentives for organ
donation. Clinical Liver Disease, 7(5), 109.
Schwartz, L. (2017). Ethical and Legal Implications of Compensated Organ Donation. Global
Kidney Exchange: Analysis and Background Papers from the Perspective of Medical Anthropology, 57.
Yacoubian, A. A., Dargham, R. A., & Khauli, R. B. (2018). A review of the possibility of
adopting financially driven live donor kidney transplantation. International braz j urol, 44(6), 1071-1080.