Business Ethics and the Commercialization of Transplant Organs
Business Ethics and the Commercialization of Transplant Organs
Currently, commercializing organs from either deceased or living donors can be prohibited legally in many parts around the world. The objective is to prevent commercialization of organs as well as ensuring a certain level of equity in gaining access to transplantation of organs. Moreover, certain proposals presented recently suggest that some forms of compensation (for instance, direct payment, tax credit, reimbursement, or moral’ incentives like honorary medals) can be permitted and explored. An issue that emerged recently, which provides considerable attention, is public solicitation of those organs received from deceased or living donors for commercial purposes. The situation can be seen as potential means for the wealthy people to gain through unfair means in accessing the organs (Morris & Knechtle, 2013).
There are various ethical issues that should be examined in the provision of the right to do the transplantation (Veatch, 2000). Morally, humans are born from a family which led to a community; therefore, their bodies are community property or resources. Consequently, it would be unethical to refuse the family of the deceased to use their member’s organ. It would be morally wrong to lose another member of the family due to kidney problems instead of transplanting from the deceased. Nevertheless, there are also some legal issues which involve signing for a transplant in case of death. The transplanted organs can, therefore, be sold for the benefit of the family in their lifetime. For instance, in New Zealand, Human Tissue Act 1964 explains that if the donor gives specific requests on the use of a specific part of the body, the people in possession of the body upon death should legally authorize the removal of those parts for commercial use. The act gives legislative go ahead to a system where the organs can be used for donation. The act also stipulates that the parts should not be given without permission or commercialized on the open market as a commodity (Shannon, 2004).
It would be immoral to consider the human body as an alienable collection of spare parts. This is immoral and can provide a dehumanizing tendency due to its lack of ethics. Moreover, where cadaver organs can be seen as a resource for the community, it can ignore the cultural fact and significance pertaining burial. This can be supported by a statement that made by Gilbert Meilander. He explained that the society’s prior trials in finding ways to prolong life should never be made to override a difficult, to articulate sense as well as deep-seated understanding of the importance of the body, not to forget the dead body.
Recent stories have it that, in some countries, children can be conceived for the purpose of serving as donors of bone marrow for family members, as well as advancement of in vitro technology in ensuring that the fetus implanted would be genetically reliable for transplant. Again, there are arguments that seek the permit to purchase and sale organs even in some countries where the business is illegal. However, poverty might lead to the sale of some organs. These organs are include, the kidneys, bone marrow and spleen. However, the reality remains that, in disregard of public policies, majority of people would do anything possible to protect themselves together with their family members and friends from death. Considering these circumstances, people can be allowed to sell their body parts after they die to provide for the family due to such problems. Again, to save the human life, there are thousands in hospitals who are in need of certain organs but legislation cannot allow them. To avoid such cases of loosing life, the government should legalize selling of such organs to those in need (Koch, 2002).
Again, to support the ethics in providing the authority over the use of body parts, The Code of Health and Disability Services Consumer’s Rights in New Zealand explains that every consumer would be provided with the right in decision, concerning disposal or return of any bodily substances or body parts obtained or removed during the health care procedures like surgery. Here, the right can be provided such that any part of the body as well as bodily substances obtained or removed during those certain a health care procedure can be preserved, stored or utilized with the informed will from the consumer (Schicktanz, 2010). Here, the consumer refers to the person entitled to provide the will on behalf of the deceased. Therefore, this indicates that a person dies while undergoing the procedure in health care requirements; an informed right over the transplant would apply to the relatives and are also able to object the donation by right provided by the Human Tissue Act 1964.
In conclusion, it can bring great importance to the public in the world to legalize commercialization of transplantation organs. This would benefit the donor together with the recipient. For instance, the donor, through deceased relatives, would benefit from the money acquired from such a deal. On the other hand, the recipient’s life would be saved (Gruessner & Benedetti, 2007). Again, legalizing commercialization of transplant organs would bring to end corrupt strategies of selling the organs. Lastly, since the deal would be legalized, people would follow the right procedure.
.
References
Gruessner, R., & Benedetti, E. (2007). Living Donor Organ Transplantation. New York: McGraw Hill Professional.
Koch, T. (2002). Scarce Goods: Justice, Fairness, and Organ Transplantation. Portsmouth: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Morris, P., & Knechtle, S. J. (2013). Kidney Transplantation - Principles and Practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier Health Sciences.
Schicktanz, S. (2010). Teaching Ethics in Organ Transplantation and Tissue Donation: Cases and Movies. Universitätsverlag Göttingen,.
Shannon, T. A. (2004). Health Care Policy: A Reader. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield,.
Veatch, R. M. (2000). Transplantation Ethics. Ohio: Georgetown University Press.
