Ethcal issues of Human Organ Sales free essay sample

Humanity is a continually growing and evolving as a race here on earth, from creating communication techniques like speaking, writing, and signing, to inventing cures to fight infection, bacteria, and parasites that can ravage a human body, and enhancing medical surgical practices to further save lives from very common injuries or sicknesses. However, a new breakthrough in the medical sciences has hit the streets of the world by storm, declaring that the solution to human organ transplants is solved. A new idea and practice that will involve every individual to have an option to both save their life, as well as the life of another human being. The new solution for human transplant and donation involves the legalization of selling human organs on the open market. In hindsight, this seems to answer all the problems of organ donning, and transplant, allowing people to sell their organs for cash and increase the supply of organs to the general population. However, this new idea and grand solution has one big issue, the public backlash from religious groups, The Roman Catholic Church, political organization like Democrats and GOP, and the overall public of America. There are viewpoints from others across the nation that will argue that human organ sales are beneficial by being legalized, but I will be explaining the problems that would be cause by the sale of human organs. I will argue the ethical issues that arise amongst religious groups, the financial fallout that is caused by the sale of human organs, and challenges the Constitutional Law, The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, which makes it illegal to sell human organs. The first cause that arises from human organ sales is the ethical and moral backlash from religious groups and other cultural organization. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Church attack the idea of legalization of human organ sales to protect human morally to one’s body. To explain, â€Å"The following conditions would render the sale of human organs morally impermissible. If the transaction were carried out in a manner that obfuscates, denies, or undermines the belief in the divine origin of human life or the dignity thereby due a corpse; or if the transaction, and the compensation gained, is motivated by or used for illegal, immoral, or irreligious purposes† (Capaldi, 2000, p. 140). Religious groups like the  Catholic Church believe that a body is Gods temple, which either living or deceased, the integrity of the human body must be preserved. In addition, religious groups would argue that individual’s must have control of their body, and its fate. â€Å"Society, specifically in the form of its religious organization, the State, may not commandeer the organs of one human being without the permission of that individual person. The relation of individual human beings to the larger body politics is moral, not organic. The total organism which is humanity has no right to impose on individuals demands in the domain of physical being on the grounds of any natural right of the ‘whole’ to dispose of the parts† (Capalidi, 2000, p. 142). The disposal of the body and its organs is sacred, and many religious organizations fixate on proper ceremonial burials and traditions that need to be upheld, and by legalizing organ sales, questions the authority and beliefs of religious groups. Finally, the topic of human marketing arises, saying that human organ sales takes the human body, looked upon as Gods temple, making the bodily organs materialistic, not holy relicts created by God. Pope John Paul II expressed, â€Å"the concern, if a particular sale promotes a â€Å"reductive materialist† conception of human life, it is unacceptable† (Capalidi 2000, p.143). Pope John Paul II argues that the human body is sacred and by allowing the sale of human organs, makes the body a walking market place, which causes a huge uproar in the religious community. Transplantation from a corps or living human requires the body to be treated with the respect due to the abode of a spiritual and immortal soul, an essential consequence of a human person whose dignity it shared, needs to be honored. Human organ sales attack the beliefs and morals of many religious organizations, causing these organizations to fight back to protect their ethical beliefs, protection of cultural traditions, and keeping the human body as gods temple and not an open market for sale. The second cause from human organ sales is the financial backdrop that occurs if individuals could sell their body organs. First off, the main issue that arises financially includes the issue that the rich will only have the access to the benefits of buying organs. Within the current climate of health care reform, financial incentives have become a part of medicine, doctors, preferred providers, and exedra, might be reasonably  assumed it will become a greater part of health care delivery in the future† (Borna, 1987, p. 38). Since individuals and companies looking to make a profit currently run the health care industry in the United States, the sale of organs should fall into the same category as other medicinal services. The field of medicine is constantly evolving and doctors and researchers are constantly developing new ways to save lives; however, they do not freely give these ideas and developments away. The willing sale of human organs should be no different, in that it takes the same approach that other medical developments currently take† (Borna, 1987, p. 38). Individuals who struggle financially obviously will not have the opportunity to purchase organs, limiting the market to those who can afford human organs, raising the price higher, and allowing those with money to live longer, and those who have limited funds die sooner. So, human organ sales does not sound as appealing when it truly, it is not saving lives, in turn, it adds more stress on average families, hurts the economic market as a whole, and the next topic of discussion the decrease in organ donations. With organs for sale on the open market, and the beneficiary being high-class individuals, the mid-income to low-income families will depend on organ donations for organ transplant, well so they think. With sales of organs on the market, the donation rate of organs will plummet because organs are now being shipped to the open market. To explain, â€Å"It has been suggested that donation rates could decrease under such a system due to a backlash and losses from the current donor pool based on pure altruistic giving (Stempsey, 2000, p.195). Now, with the sale of human organs on the open market, donations decrease, causing public outburst, which in turn, causes finical failure across the board. It has been stated, â€Å"The ideal public policy would be one in which everyone voluntarily donated their organs, especially to private medical-charitable agencies† (Stempsey, 2000, p.197). Donations are what keep organ transplants flowing into the market, makes an equal playing field for all social classes, and stabilizes the economic market. The last negative cause from human organ sales is the ability to keep overall public order, while trying to challenge the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, which made human organ sales illegal on the open market. The United States government under President Ronald Regan, signed the National Organ Transplant Act, making organ selling illegal, but not making it illegal to donation, with the consensus that the public would be oblige to donate their organs. Now, at that time, the United States had a conservative president who believed in the sanctity of human life, which fell under human organ sales, and even though thirty years later, the consensus stays the same. Even in today’s times, with liberal leadership, the public’s perspective has not changed. For instance, â€Å"Under such assumptions, opponents of commerce in human body parts conclude that commercialization could never be an ethical option to pursue for the public; while this objection is also what George Anna’s claims to be the single major argument from a legal perspective† (Torcello, L., Wear, S. 2000, p. 153). In fact, the people of the United States agree that the Act signed nearly thirty years ago, must stay in place to keep order among the populous. The approval of the nation’s citizens is key, and if the sale of human organs commenced, order would be broken within the country. A sub reason why the overall populous does not want the sale of human organs is governmental greed, lack of responsibility on behalf of the people, and regulation of organ sales within an open market. Greed is a powerful concept that has ravaged the United States Government, â€Å"Commercialization in itself cannot be held as moral. In so far as it has the potential to cause greed, it is given another value, insofar as one may avoid the temptation of overzealous greed, the faithful are given a valuable opportunity to test and demonstrate their sanctity† (Torcello, L., Wear, S. 2000, p. 153). Greed is a part of American society, and allowing the government to control human organ sales is just another fateful cause that would negatively evolve from allowing the National Organ Transplant Act to be repealed and legalize the sale of human organs. Lastly, government responsibility, as it was stated earlier in my argument, lacks tremendously, holding no accountability, but only reap the benefits of organ sales while not allowing or blame private companies for the failures of the Federal Government. To explain, â€Å"Government programs discourage private charity, partly because everyone assumes that someone else is responsible for taking care of the problem. Commendable aspects of charity evaporate. It is inherently impossible for the government or a government agency in a modern liberal culture, such as  the United States, to formulate an objective policy to promote a canonical, content-full account of human good† (Wellington, A. J., Sayre, E. A. 2011, p.2-3). As I spoke before, even in a liberal society, where socialism is the backbone of their idealism, Americans, even those who support many of their same ideas and principles, understand that too much government involvement only causes hardships here in America, designed both as a capitalistic society, with ideals of socialism construct. The Government involvement in allowing human organ sales in an open, free-lance market, is by far the most important and harmful cause to America if the sales of human organs was permitted. In hindsight, ethical issues that arise amongst religious groups, the financial fallout that will be caused by the sale of human organs, and the challenges of overall public order due to Constitutional Law, shown by The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, which makes the sale of human organs illegal is an overall national issue. I argue that these three major issues will be at the forefront of the battle of legal sale of organs, causing religious unrest throughout the world, financially degrade the U.S economy, as well as its citizens of all three social classes, and create social unrest among Americans because of Federal Government involvement. In turn, the idea that the sale of human organs is beneficial is completely false in all aspects of the argument, due to the horrific amounts of negative causes and phenomenon’s that will occur and continue to evolve exponentially worse as time goes on. I ask you, do you think that legalizing the sale of human organs would actually benefit the citizens of America long or even short term, or grief stricken the families of America who work, believe and fight for this great nation? References Capaldi, N. (2000). A Catholic Perspective on Organ Sales. Christian Bioethics: Non- Ecumenical Studies In Medical Morality, 6(2), 139-151. Borna, S. (1987). Morality and Marketing Human Organs. Journal Of Business Ethics, 6(1), 37-44. Torcello, L., Wear, S. (2000). The Commercialization of Human Body Parts: A Reappraisal from aProtestant Perspective. Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies In Medical Morality, 6(2), 153. Stempsey, S. E. (2000). Organ Markets and Human Dignity: On Selling Your Body and Soul. Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies In Medical Morality, 6(2), 195-204.