Argumentative Essay On Organ Sales
Organ Sales Currently, the United States is facing a crisis. On average, 20 people are dying every day because there is a shortage of organs. Right now, to receive an organ, one must wait for an organ donor to die, or receive an organ from someone who is willing to give up one of theirs. With technology and medical advances, organ transplants are becoming more successful, effective, and safe. For those reasons, many people would be willing to sell an organ to a complete stranger. But right now, it is illegal for someone to sell their organs. In turn, this has created a black market for organs, and from this, it has caused chaos in some countries. There needs to be a legal market for organs because it will actually help the economy,
…show more content…
minimize the black market, end violence, and most of all, save lives.
With the legalization of an organ market, this will not just benefit only those who can afford an organ; it will benefit those who are in financial trouble. According to Gregory, “Many protest that an organ market will lead to unfair advantages for the rich, but this is a characteristic of the current trade” (Gregory “Why Legalizing Organ Sales”). This suggests that protesting individuals are not fully educated in what they are protesting against. Rather they are comparing the current method the United States uses. Even those who can’t afford it initially can be put on a payment plan. Also, health insurance would be able to cover most of the costs. In the United States, it is currently legal to sell human tissues, blood plasma, ova, and sperm; however, one cannot legally sale their own organs. Yet, organizations can offer monetary rewards to motivate and entice people to participate in human experiments and research. These experiments can be dangerous, but they are still considered “reasonable, legal, and ethical” (Friedman “Payment for Living Organ Donations”). Also additional legal dangerous acts are having a surrogate mother. Surrogacy is when people who are unable to carry their own children can rent a mother’s uterus for as much as fifty thousand dollars. The couple or individual employing the surrogate will pay for nearly every expense accumulated while the uterus is in use. Iran is currently the only country to have a legal organ trade. They currently have no economic issues with it and it seems to work well. Iranian civilians can trade their organs for cash or employment. The only negative side effect is the health of the donors after the surgery, because of their lack of up to date medical operations, donors sometimes get extremely ill. India also had a very successful legal market until 1994. Reason for the end of the market was due to a lack of regulation. India failed to get the appropriate amount of money to the donors, and other ethical issues. From these two examples, this is enough proof to see that a legal market in the U.S. can happen and could be extremely successfully. To make it work in the U.S. the government can regulate the price, objective, and multidisciplinary body (Friedman). Family and emotionally attached people can still donate to the receiver. However, if someone were to buy an organ, it should be from legal residents only. Being able to buy from non-residents would cause people from lower income countries to come over and try and sell their organs causing many complications. Also, there will be regulations put on price, criteria for donors and recipients, and possibly insurance policies (Friedman). So economically, people will be able to most likely gain minor financial advances and the hospital will likely spend less money doing a transplant than caring for a sick patient for months and even years (Friedman). Similar to drugs, there is a black market for organs because of the lack of a legal market. As long as it remains illegal, there will always be a black market. Poor people are still risking their health and selling their organs to strangers. The black market has an insane demand for kidneys and has led people to take kidneys from others without them knowing or permission. This has escalated so bad, that there are actually “organ gangs” that go around forcing people to give up their kidneys. Once the kidney is removed (usually from a poor, innocent civilian, in a third world country), it is then shipped to a more developed country and someone of a more fortunate situation is then given the kidney or organ of need (Rohter). As suspected, being a third world country, those who have their organs removed are not properly treated. Hence, many of them suffer extreme infections and death is not uncommon. Although these incidents don’t happen as often as they are made out to be, they do still happen (Scheeper-Hughes). Legalizing an organ market can save more than the receiver’s life. The most convincing argument that can be made for a legal market is the demand for organ donors. As stated earlier, nearly 20 people die every day because they cannot find an organ donor. That is in the U.S. alone. As of 2009, there were over one hundred thousand people on the waiting list and a dismal 14,630 donors which includes the living and deceased. That’s a gap of almost ninety thousand people who go without a transplant. For the right amount, the majority of the recipient’s would pay a pretty good price for their organ of need. On the other hand, there are copious amounts of people who would be willing to give up an unneeded organ to someone in need for the right price. In China, they are currently using the organs of executed prisoners to fill the gap. This is highly unethical in the fact that they are taking the organs of people who are probably unwilling to donate their organs as well as have been exposed to various types of diseases while imprisoned. This is no better than the black market or forcing people to give up their organs through violence (Shimazono) Opponents of a legal market conclude that it is immoral and could start more violence.
When it comes to being immoral, opponents also tend to include that it is against their religion. This is a matter of state and religious views that are separate, making this argument is void. With it being immoral, that is hard to understand because currently it is legal to sell ones sperm, blood plasma, and other body parts/functions. It is also legal to use a surrogate mother. If someone wants to sell their own organs, then they should be able to sell their own organs to save a life. Opponents think that there will be businesses that will pursue organs for donation. It will then escalate so bad that people will turn to violence to get organs from people so they can sell them. These opponents think that the government will allow a market without regulations. Of course the government will regulate this. They will have set prices, restrictions which will probably include that the organ seller must also be the organ donor so stealing someone else’s organ would be completely pointless. Another argument made against the market is the fact that the procedure is dangerous. When a donor is making the decision, they’re usually made aware of the dangers and have to sign a waiver. Same will go for those who sell. Opponents also tend to argue that transplants don’t extend a person’s life for that much longer. According to government statistics, the majority of people are still living five years after the operation. Specifically these statistics include 69.3% of kidney operations, 74.9% of the heart, 73.8% of the liver, and 54.4% of the lung. From this, one can conclude that these transplants do help significantly in prolonging one’s life. (Analyses* what does this mean?) This argument the opposition makes can be easily dismissed. (Why can these be
dismissed) The majority of people, who were put into the bind of needing an organ, will most likely be willing to pay for an organ if that was the only way to live. Put the opposition in this bind and I’m sure the majority of them will take it instantly. Personally, if I were the receiver, I would feel less guilty taking an organ knowing that the giver was properly compensated. Yes, donating is a great thing, but it is not enough. For that reason alone, a market should be opened, it is working for Iran, has worked before, and can work for us. In order to close the gap and save more lives, their needs to be a legalized organ market.
minimize the black market, end violence, and most of all, save lives.
With the legalization of an organ market, this will not just benefit only those who can afford an organ; it will benefit those who are in financial trouble. According to Gregory, “Many protest that an organ market will lead to unfair advantages for the rich, but this is a characteristic of the current trade” (Gregory “Why Legalizing Organ Sales”). This suggests that protesting individuals are not fully educated in what they are protesting against. Rather they are comparing the current method the United States uses. Even those who can’t afford it initially can be put on a payment plan. Also, health insurance would be able to cover most of the costs. In the United States, it is currently legal to sell human tissues, blood plasma, ova, and sperm; however, one cannot legally sale their own organs. Yet, organizations can offer monetary rewards to motivate and entice people to participate in human experiments and research. These experiments can be dangerous, but they are still considered “reasonable, legal, and ethical” (Friedman “Payment for Living Organ Donations”). Also additional legal dangerous acts are having a surrogate mother. Surrogacy is when people who are unable to carry their own children can rent a mother’s uterus for as much as fifty thousand dollars. The couple or individual employing the surrogate will pay for nearly every expense accumulated while the uterus is in use. Iran is currently the only country to have a legal organ trade. They currently have no economic issues with it and it seems to work well. Iranian civilians can trade their organs for cash or employment. The only negative side effect is the health of the donors after the surgery, because of their lack of up to date medical operations, donors sometimes get extremely ill. India also had a very successful legal market until 1994. Reason for the end of the market was due to a lack of regulation. India failed to get the appropriate amount of money to the donors, and other ethical issues. From these two examples, this is enough proof to see that a legal market in the U.S. can happen and could be extremely successfully. To make it work in the U.S. the government can regulate the price, objective, and multidisciplinary body (Friedman). Family and emotionally attached people can still donate to the receiver. However, if someone were to buy an organ, it should be from legal residents only. Being able to buy from non-residents would cause people from lower income countries to come over and try and sell their organs causing many complications. Also, there will be regulations put on price, criteria for donors and recipients, and possibly insurance policies (Friedman). So economically, people will be able to most likely gain minor financial advances and the hospital will likely spend less money doing a transplant than caring for a sick patient for months and even years (Friedman). Similar to drugs, there is a black market for organs because of the lack of a legal market. As long as it remains illegal, there will always be a black market. Poor people are still risking their health and selling their organs to strangers. The black market has an insane demand for kidneys and has led people to take kidneys from others without them knowing or permission. This has escalated so bad, that there are actually “organ gangs” that go around forcing people to give up their kidneys. Once the kidney is removed (usually from a poor, innocent civilian, in a third world country), it is then shipped to a more developed country and someone of a more fortunate situation is then given the kidney or organ of need (Rohter). As suspected, being a third world country, those who have their organs removed are not properly treated. Hence, many of them suffer extreme infections and death is not uncommon. Although these incidents don’t happen as often as they are made out to be, they do still happen (Scheeper-Hughes). Legalizing an organ market can save more than the receiver’s life. The most convincing argument that can be made for a legal market is the demand for organ donors. As stated earlier, nearly 20 people die every day because they cannot find an organ donor. That is in the U.S. alone. As of 2009, there were over one hundred thousand people on the waiting list and a dismal 14,630 donors which includes the living and deceased. That’s a gap of almost ninety thousand people who go without a transplant. For the right amount, the majority of the recipient’s would pay a pretty good price for their organ of need. On the other hand, there are copious amounts of people who would be willing to give up an unneeded organ to someone in need for the right price. In China, they are currently using the organs of executed prisoners to fill the gap. This is highly unethical in the fact that they are taking the organs of people who are probably unwilling to donate their organs as well as have been exposed to various types of diseases while imprisoned. This is no better than the black market or forcing people to give up their organs through violence (Shimazono) Opponents of a legal market conclude that it is immoral and could start more violence.
When it comes to being immoral, opponents also tend to include that it is against their religion. This is a matter of state and religious views that are separate, making this argument is void. With it being immoral, that is hard to understand because currently it is legal to sell ones sperm, blood plasma, and other body parts/functions. It is also legal to use a surrogate mother. If someone wants to sell their own organs, then they should be able to sell their own organs to save a life. Opponents think that there will be businesses that will pursue organs for donation. It will then escalate so bad that people will turn to violence to get organs from people so they can sell them. These opponents think that the government will allow a market without regulations. Of course the government will regulate this. They will have set prices, restrictions which will probably include that the organ seller must also be the organ donor so stealing someone else’s organ would be completely pointless. Another argument made against the market is the fact that the procedure is dangerous. When a donor is making the decision, they’re usually made aware of the dangers and have to sign a waiver. Same will go for those who sell. Opponents also tend to argue that transplants don’t extend a person’s life for that much longer. According to government statistics, the majority of people are still living five years after the operation. Specifically these statistics include 69.3% of kidney operations, 74.9% of the heart, 73.8% of the liver, and 54.4% of the lung. From this, one can conclude that these transplants do help significantly in prolonging one’s life. (Analyses* what does this mean?) This argument the opposition makes can be easily dismissed. (Why can these be
dismissed) The majority of people, who were put into the bind of needing an organ, will most likely be willing to pay for an organ if that was the only way to live. Put the opposition in this bind and I’m sure the majority of them will take it instantly. Personally, if I were the receiver, I would feel less guilty taking an organ knowing that the giver was properly compensated. Yes, donating is a great thing, but it is not enough. For that reason alone, a market should be opened, it is working for Iran, has worked before, and can work for us. In order to close the gap and save more lives, their needs to be a legalized organ market.