A billionaire executive is in desperate need of a kidney transplant and is low on the waiting list for prospective donors. However, he decides to offer a proposition to any takers: an immediate $2 million pay out, free health care and an annual payment of $500,000 a year for the rest of the donor's life (or his wife if he predeceases her) in exchange for one kidney. After only a few days, he has more than enough people willing to make the exchange. Unfortunately for the billionaire such a transaction is currently illegal. But should it? The exchange, after all, cause no harm to either the executive (whose life is saved )or the donor (who no longer has any financial worries and is perfectly healthy with only one kidney). What should be the legal status of selling organs -- and on what principle?
Selling organs, assuming the procedure is reasonably safe and has well known risks, should be legal. There are two fronts to look at this problem. The first is a policy front, which is less important. Making the sale of organs weakens the black market of organs, which is much more easily exploitable. Also, the sale of organs can be regulated and tracked, making human trafficking for the purpose of organ selling more easily prosecutable. The second is the moral front. The legal principle in question is Legal Moralism, not harm to self. As the prompt outlines, “The exchange, after all, cause no harm to either the executive (whose life is saved) or the donor (who no longer has any financial worries and is perfectly healthy with only one kidney).” The moral argument against this is that selling one’s body for capital gain is immoral. However, this should not be an issue the state intervenes on. This is for three reasons. First, as Mill explains, “[Human liberty] requires liberty of tastes and pursuits, of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character” (Mill 12). Being able to decide one’s own life path is necessary for liberty. Secondly, morals differ for different people. What is moral for one person is immoral for the next; thus, the state has no justification for deciding morality. Third, by making the sale of kidneys (in this instance), the state is actively harming others. They are harming a) the billionaire, who needs the kidney for his life and b) the donor, who’s financial situation is undesirable right now, but could be bettered with this donation.
ReplyDeleteIf an individual is willing to sell their organ for the price they deem right, it should not be up to the government to decide if it is morally right to do so. The government already relies on organ donors which procure organs from already deceased individuals and in some cases without their consent. If a rich person would be willing to pay-out a large some of money and maintain a payment for several years while also covering medical prices of the operation and any medical complications that come with donating an organ there should not be any problem with that transaction.
ReplyDeleteSelling organs should be illegal for a multitude of reasons. Waiting on a transplant list is gruesome, yes... and it could take many years. However, if said person is at the bottom of the list, their procedure most likely is not that urgent. Many people can live on dialysis for 5-30 years while they wait for an organ to be available. Being able to sell organs for large amounts of money could lead to many problems. For example, a group could form that takes peoples organs in order to profit off it. I understand that the main idea behind selling organs is to help the person in need, and as a reward they get money. However, the world does not only have good people, and many would take advantage of this. Human trafficking rates would go up significantly, especially if people are buying organs for a ton of money. This could put many people at risk, which would involve the principle of self harm. Harm would be inflicted on others, because the reaction to this practice being legal is unknown. I think that it would have a very bad reaction, because many people only care about money/having a ton of money. Taking peoples organs and selling them would increase their income significantly.
ReplyDeleteThe status of selling organs should be legal. If the transaction of selling the organ is done safely and clearly benefits both sides, then there should be no problem with this selling. Human trafficking is a big issue and the selling of organs through the black market is also a current issue. If the government legalizes the selling of organs, it could potentially lead to an increase of human trafficking with the want to sell these organs on the legal market. I believe that if the transaction is done personally by the people who are selling their own organs and the person buying them or a family member of said person, there should be no problem since the organs would have come from a suspicious background then such as human trafficking. If anything legalizing it under these circumstances would decrease human trafficking for the purpose of selling organs since the black market would not have a need for organs as a product after their commerce has been legalized. Many people wait on long lists for years trying to get an organ transplant and the number of people who donate organs cannot keep up with those who need them, so opening this market would help many people both in need of money through selling at no harm or little harm to themselves and people who need these very important organs to live and be healthy. J.S. Mill believes that people should have the power and authority to determine their own lives as they have the most knowledge about themselves. This plays into the selling of organs as the people involved could have specific circumstances as to why that transaction would be beneficial like the example stated in the prompt, so that transaction should be legalized by the government and left up to the individuals as to whether they want to do it or not. People also have the right to sell their own property and I believe that their organs are no different. It would be immoral to sell themselves as property or sell property of their own that harms them, but selling something of theirs that benefits both sides should not need the government's interference.
ReplyDeleteBeing able to sell your own organs should be legal. However, it should be legal if the procedure is safe and the person selling their organ is not doing so under any act of coercion. At the end of the day its your organ you are selling and who are others/ the government to tell you otherwise. Being able to sell your organs legally could change so many lives in a beneficial way. People who have no way to bring in income could become financially stable enough to start a new life. If nobody is being affected in a negative way I see no issue with being able to sell your own organs. As long as the government or the people create a system to make sure that a person trying to sell their organ is not being forced to do so or being threatened in any manner then it should definitely be legal.
ReplyDeleteStone Zashin
ReplyDeleteIn the example of the dying billionaire and his urgent need for a kidney, I believe that an organ's sale is ethical and fiscally responsible for many people. The agreement between the man and the donor is clearly highlighted, and it not only gives the billionaire a second chance, but it could save the donor's life as well. I think the sale of organs should be legal as it is ethical in many circumstances. Although legal, the government should regulate it as 'black market' sales shouldn't be available or legal. Suppose a deal is struck between a donor and a patient for an organ, and it is relatively unharmful for the donor. In that case, a legal agreement should have the possibility to be formed into a contract that should execute the transaction if deemed appropriate. There are pros and cons of legalization. These pros and cons are serious, and although they are important factors, the pros out weigh the cons. For example, A large pro is that legalizing organs' sale will "alleviate the organ shortage in the United States" (business.uccs.edu). The major con is that the wealthy's extensive exploitation of the poor as money is power in life and money can change behavior. The major con can be out ruled because if there is government regulation or hospital regulation, the regulators won't let people be exploited by the rich in these situations. In conclusion, legal organ sales will not only benefit the donor with a hefty profit of life-changing money, but the recipient will have another chance at life.
The transaction of selling organs in exchange for payment (regardless of the amount) should be deemed legal. From my perspective, two lives are being saved here, as the billionaire was so far down the list, that he may not have been able to survive long enough for a donor to step up. However, the donor and his or her family's lives will be changed forever as this magnitude of money is almost unheard of. Because of this, I believe that nobody is harmed during this transaction, and since both sides benefit, I don't think this should be illegal. However, just because this should be a legal transaction doesn't mean that there aren't any morality issues associated with it as well. According to an article published by Queensborough Community College, "Just because something is immoral does not make it illegal and just because something is illegal it does not make it immoral". I believe a transaction like this changes the landscape of organ donations in the future because donors will start expecting money in exchange for their donation. This is immoral because true acts of kindness are from those who don't expect anything in return. In other words, people will be making donations for the money, and not out of genuine kindness. However, just because these transactions are immoral, does not mean that they should be illegal. John Stuart Mill would most likely agree with me with his Harm to Others Principle. He believes that liberty should only be taken away if someone is harmed by the action that such freedom allows. However, in the instance described in the prompt, neither the donor, nor the recipient, are harmed during the process. In fact, they both benefit from the transaction. Although I agree that this is an immoral transaction, and it will set a bad trend for the following years, that doesn't make this an illegal one.
ReplyDeleteYou should not sell your kidneys for money because of the risk of harming yourself. Even though you could live just fine without your kidneys, you could also die during surgery or complications after the surgery that could have been avoided if you did not sell your organs. Why risk your life when it could have been avoided and done legally. People who are desperate for money and result in selling organs are putting their life on the line just for a little bit of money, whereas if they got a job, or sold vintage items they would be alive and live a long life. Though I do understand the desire to sell an organ and how legal moralism plays a factor, if everyone were to start selling their organs then many people would suffer complications and die. The government should not control what we do with our bodies and how we live our life, but there has to be some sort of control to facilitate that people are not selling all of their organs and basically killing themselves. Harm to Others in this manner is ambiguous since people are not directly committing suicide or homicide but it is Harm to Self.
ReplyDelete