Organ transplantation is considered the urgent issue nowadays since greater percentage of people is desperately trying to find new ways of treatment. However, the transplanted organs underscore a number of controversies. On the one hand, introducing payment for organ donations contradicts the societal values and diminishes human dignity.
On the other hand, desperate need in human organs can make people resort to unlawful actions and engage into illegal trade. The both sides of debates need closer consideration to define which one is more persuasive. Nevertheless, establishing legal prohibitions on paying for organ donation justifies moral and ethical underpinnings and underscores the existing systems of values.
Offering any financial compensation for organ donation does not correspond to currently shaped values of society. Living in a globalized community means exercising morally justified actions and, therefore, any attempt to establish price for parts of human body can dehumanize and depreciate human life as itself.
As a result, the World Health Organization has introduced the guiding principles that provide an ethical framework for controlling transplantation and acquisition of human organs for medical purpose (n. p). Removing any financial incentives that are heavily practiced in underground market can enhance the actual values and ethical foundations.
Introducing payment conditions to organ transplantation can discourage financially disadvantage people. In contrast, solvent buyers of organs can be exploited by private health care establishment, which also undermines the established guiding principles of organ donation.
Although the potential of people to purchase organs might bring in profits to health care and increase supply and demand of transplanted organs, the fact of increased supply rates is doubtful because recent surveys prove that most families refuse donating organs of their relatives for payment because it is not a persuasive price for a human life.
The survey results have also discovered that most Americans are reluctant to become donors because of their distrust to the U.S health care (Clouse 592). Therefore, introducing financial incentives is unlikely to change the situation; rather, it would contribute to people’s distrust.
In 1984, the U.S. government issued the act that acknowledged altruism as the only motivation for people to donate organs. However, altruism has not contributed greatly to the supply of transplants, causing significant shifts in thinking. The ethical principle is premised on the developing new directions for procuring organs and applying to available organs.
According to estimates by Josefson over 78, 000 patients are expecting for their transplants, but about 15,000 people die annually because of failure to receive organs on time (446). The situation might change as soon as financial incentives are introduced to encourage the donation among the population. Accepting the financial benefits could also endow organ donors with preferred status, which would allow them to receive organs should they require transplantation in future.
Despite the potential benefits of considering payment for organ donation, the legal prohibition of financial benefits of transplantation for donors are more justified for several persuasive reasons. To begin with, people could better realize the value of a human life and enhance their moral and ethical principles.
Further, people’s awareness of financial incentives could contribute to discrimination of people in accordance to their solvency capabilities. Finally, removing economic benefits will promote a new ethical framework for the modern globalized community. All these guidelines are indispensible for assessing the needs of each member of society.
Works Cited
Clouse, Barbara Fine. Patterns for a Purpose: A Rhetorical Reader. US: McGraw-Hill, 2002. Print.
Josefson, Debora. “United States Starts to Consider Paying Organ Donors”. BMJ. 324.7335 (2002): 446. Print.
The World Health Organization. Draft Guiding Principle on Human Organ Transplantation. 2012. Web.