Why Is It Ethical To Commercialize Organ Transplants
A Assignment 1 Week 4: Commercialization of Organ Transplants
Jennifer A. Blake
Professor Kim Williams Business Ethics
Abstract
Today I come before as not only a member of this committee but as an ethical human of sound moral compass. I have reviewed both sides of the arguments, in addition to policy procedures and both ethical and unethical arguments. “Despite stringent and fine-tuned laws most jurisdictions are not able to curb organ trafficking. Nor are they able to provide organs to the needy. There are reports of the kidnapping and murder of children and adults to …show more content…
“harvest” their organs. Millions of people are suffering, not because the organs are not available but because “morality” does not allow them to have access to the organs.” So with that being said is the commercialization of organ transplants just or are we allowing vital organs be lost and used due to ethically application?
Commercialization of Organ Transplants
The basic ethical principle involved in organ transplantation is whether a person has a right to enjoy life on the basis of organs belonging to others weather given freely, as a gift or paid for. No matter what way it is offered we must concede that we are prepared to inflict harm on others in order to improve our own health or to prolong our life. “Thus we sacrifice the long cherished principle of non-maleficence in medicine.” (Human organs, scarcities, and sale: morality revisited) Even if a person gives his organ willingly and without any thought as to recompense he or she will suffer harm to their own body.
The arguments are that principle of non-maleficence in medicine. “1.the action itself must not be intrinsically wrong, it must be a good or neutral act. 2. Only the good effect must be intended, not the bad effect, even though it is foreseen. 3. The bad effect must not be the means of the good effect, 4.the good effect must outweigh the evil that is permitted.”(The Principle of Non-maleficence) These reason could clearly conclude “the integrity of the human body should never be subject to trade”, and a new policy to allow the sale of organs is unethical “when it penalizes the weakest people and exacerbates discrimination based on census” and generates “the risk of exploitation of vulnerable donors”. (Human organs, scarcities, and sale: morality revisited)
As a member of this committee my position stands against this policy. “The presence of consideration does not alter the basic content of an act such as an organ sale”. Society may have a duty to preserve life and relieve human suffering, but not by any means whatsoever. In particularly, society should not adopt any practices that would create injustices moreover violate the rights of individuals. As individuals we own the right to live our lives with dignity. A selling market of organs would unavoidably lead to abuses that would violate the freedom of choice and dignity of all humans. Tolerating the sale of organs will lead to none other than the exploitation of the unfortunate and unknowing or less educated.
It is immoral to place a price on your life while trying to save the life of another. There are rules to be followed so that human life is preserved with dignity and integrity. The sale of organs is plainly unethical, it goes against everything that medicine stands for. Medicine is a gift that assists in preserving life along with our values, and giving payment for organs to possibly save a life is not of good will or intent. Gifting and organ at free will with no ill intention or monitory compensation is a reward in itself.
So it is with moral judgment that I agree with the arguments, it is with the principles of medicine that I declare that it is unethical to commercialize the sale of organ Transplants.
For as it is written “a physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights. A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions, and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities. A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.”(Principles of Medical Ethics)
Following the laws set forth to ensure human dignity is upheld and conserved is our job as an ethics committee. In accordance with the oath taken by physicians and staff members to uphold medical excellence with our community, I don’t not see selling organs feasible for as we save a life we put another in danger. Yes a new policy to allow the sale of organs by consenting individuals to patients in need and to medical institutions has been proposed to those seeking a dishonest yet unethical profit. But we as healthcare professionals should and will oppose the immoral and uphold the ethical standards of
care.
So in conclusion, I say it is with certainty that hundreds if not thousands will die yearly, nevertheless it is the value that we place on preventing those death and the value we add to alleviating suffering, and the value we place on respect for human dignity that will show our commitment to meeting human needs in a fair and equitable manner for the greater good of all mankind..
References
Human organs, scarcities, and sale: morality revisited BY: R. R. Kishore July 13th, 2004 retrieved from: http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/6/362.full
The Principle of Non-maleficence no author April 11, 2008 retrieved from:
Illustrative Cases https://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/prin2cs.html
Principles of Medical Ethics A physician shall support access to medical care for all people. Adopted June 1957; revised June 1980; revised June 2001 retrieved by: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/principles-medical-ethics.page?
Jennifer A. Blake
Professor Kim Williams Business Ethics
Abstract
Today I come before as not only a member of this committee but as an ethical human of sound moral compass. I have reviewed both sides of the arguments, in addition to policy procedures and both ethical and unethical arguments. “Despite stringent and fine-tuned laws most jurisdictions are not able to curb organ trafficking. Nor are they able to provide organs to the needy. There are reports of the kidnapping and murder of children and adults to …show more content…
“harvest” their organs. Millions of people are suffering, not because the organs are not available but because “morality” does not allow them to have access to the organs.” So with that being said is the commercialization of organ transplants just or are we allowing vital organs be lost and used due to ethically application?
Commercialization of Organ Transplants
The basic ethical principle involved in organ transplantation is whether a person has a right to enjoy life on the basis of organs belonging to others weather given freely, as a gift or paid for. No matter what way it is offered we must concede that we are prepared to inflict harm on others in order to improve our own health or to prolong our life. “Thus we sacrifice the long cherished principle of non-maleficence in medicine.” (Human organs, scarcities, and sale: morality revisited) Even if a person gives his organ willingly and without any thought as to recompense he or she will suffer harm to their own body.
The arguments are that principle of non-maleficence in medicine. “1.the action itself must not be intrinsically wrong, it must be a good or neutral act. 2. Only the good effect must be intended, not the bad effect, even though it is foreseen. 3. The bad effect must not be the means of the good effect, 4.the good effect must outweigh the evil that is permitted.”(The Principle of Non-maleficence) These reason could clearly conclude “the integrity of the human body should never be subject to trade”, and a new policy to allow the sale of organs is unethical “when it penalizes the weakest people and exacerbates discrimination based on census” and generates “the risk of exploitation of vulnerable donors”. (Human organs, scarcities, and sale: morality revisited)
As a member of this committee my position stands against this policy. “The presence of consideration does not alter the basic content of an act such as an organ sale”. Society may have a duty to preserve life and relieve human suffering, but not by any means whatsoever. In particularly, society should not adopt any practices that would create injustices moreover violate the rights of individuals. As individuals we own the right to live our lives with dignity. A selling market of organs would unavoidably lead to abuses that would violate the freedom of choice and dignity of all humans. Tolerating the sale of organs will lead to none other than the exploitation of the unfortunate and unknowing or less educated.
It is immoral to place a price on your life while trying to save the life of another. There are rules to be followed so that human life is preserved with dignity and integrity. The sale of organs is plainly unethical, it goes against everything that medicine stands for. Medicine is a gift that assists in preserving life along with our values, and giving payment for organs to possibly save a life is not of good will or intent. Gifting and organ at free will with no ill intention or monitory compensation is a reward in itself.
So it is with moral judgment that I agree with the arguments, it is with the principles of medicine that I declare that it is unethical to commercialize the sale of organ Transplants.
For as it is written “a physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights. A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions, and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities. A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.”(Principles of Medical Ethics)
Following the laws set forth to ensure human dignity is upheld and conserved is our job as an ethics committee. In accordance with the oath taken by physicians and staff members to uphold medical excellence with our community, I don’t not see selling organs feasible for as we save a life we put another in danger. Yes a new policy to allow the sale of organs by consenting individuals to patients in need and to medical institutions has been proposed to those seeking a dishonest yet unethical profit. But we as healthcare professionals should and will oppose the immoral and uphold the ethical standards of
care.
So in conclusion, I say it is with certainty that hundreds if not thousands will die yearly, nevertheless it is the value that we place on preventing those death and the value we add to alleviating suffering, and the value we place on respect for human dignity that will show our commitment to meeting human needs in a fair and equitable manner for the greater good of all mankind..
References
Human organs, scarcities, and sale: morality revisited BY: R. R. Kishore July 13th, 2004 retrieved from: http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/6/362.full
The Principle of Non-maleficence no author April 11, 2008 retrieved from:
Illustrative Cases https://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/prin2cs.html
Principles of Medical Ethics A physician shall support access to medical care for all people. Adopted June 1957; revised June 1980; revised June 2001 retrieved by: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/principles-medical-ethics.page?