Human Organs as a Commodity

INTRODUCTION

Over the years, different problems in the medical and health discipline confront professionals and practitioners. Often, these problems require the presence of immediate and sustainable solution, as a means of the progress of humanity. After all, an individual who is healthy in all aspects, especially physically, can be better equipped to face life. Unfortunately, there are many people who are not enjoying the preferred state of health. For instance, there are many who are suffering from organ failure. This is a reason for them to function differently from others, in addition to the fact that they have to suffer from pain and burden which almost becomes unbearable at the hardest of times. In order to be provided with a solution on such problem, many are open to the idea of accepting organ transplant, while there are also many who are willing to give their organs to others, at times, in anticipation of a financial reward.

The treatment of human organs as a commodity has long been evident in history. A commodity refers to an object which is exchanged, with an economic value, and it marketed in order to possibly pursue the satisfaction of wants and needs of humans (Halasz, 1997). Seeing human organs as a commodity represents a trend which has been subjected into a number of debates, especially when taken from the moral perspective, often based on the view that human beings are not things or machines. Humans have bodies which are seen as significant, and in no way it should be treated as something which can be sold in the market at a pre-determined tag price. Although this is triggered by needs, poverty, and market forces, it is one activity which should be opposed, especially if it puts the life of the other into a high level of risk (Cherry, 2005). In the remaining parts of this essay, the author provides a discussion supporting the claims on treating human organs as a commodity.

ARGUMNETS ON TREATING ORGANS AS COMMODITY

As it has been noted in the earlier section, the treatment of human organs as a commodity has been debated in the past. There are differing opinions about how such is seen, which has resulted into differences on the perception of the acceptance of the act. One of the aspects which should be examined in investigating this debate is to see such from an economic perspective. This comes from the supply demand analysis of the human organs. In the recent years, a number of breakthroughs and developments have been introduced in order to provide support to the argument that human organ as a commodity can be deemed as acceptable. It is also said that demand has already exceeded supply basically because of the increasing number of people who are in need of non-vital human organs in order to treat their health problems. However, there are still many people who are skeptic about doing so. This skepticism stems from the fear of possible complications, in spite of the breakthroughs introduced and the risk which is perceived from such procedure (World Health Organization, 1991).

When taken from the economic and entrepreneurial perspective, organ transplant and having it treated as a commodity can be seen as a way in which people exploit apparent opportunities in order to attain better economic situations. This means that people grab the opportunity in order to earn money, without much emphasis on what needs to be sacrificed. In a society which is confronted with poverty, selling organs is seen as one of the solutions in order to raise much needed money. The provision of compensation or financial incentives for the donation of organs has been seen as one of the ways in the reduction of altruism and making organ donation more voluntary. Because of the need for money and means to achieve economic sustainability, treating human organs as a commodity becomes acceptable for some people (Hansmann, 1989).

Furthermore, those who support seeing the human organ as a commodity also argue that all people are equipped with the rights to decide what they would want to do with their own bodies. They can decide, based on their knowledge on preferences, the things which would be best for them, even if entails sacrificing one thing in order to meet the ends. This right is extended as being inherent to the individual even after the occurrence of death. This can take place in the form of leaving an informed consent, in the event of death, instructing the donation of an organ, or having it sold, for the purpose of satisfying the needs of other people (Kuhse & Singer, 2006).

With the presence of arguments from those people who support the treatment of the human organ as a commodity, the other end of the spectrum also echoes a multitude of opinions about the topic, pointing out to the wrongfulness of the act. The strongest basis for such opposition stems from the moral perspectives. There are ethical arguments which abound in order to oppose such practice. Different concerned parties have been acting on their behalf in order to prevent the spread of such marketing activity.