Economic perspective
The argument for liberalization of the market for human organs can be also justified by considering the potential costs and benefits for every party. Thus, people, who are in need of organs, will be able to receive them much quicker. The organs as well as the donors will be carefully examined in advance, therefore recipients will have lower chances to reject the organs and the success rate of the surgeries will likely to increase. Donors will benefit from the market transparency, since they will be able to make decisions about their organs like about any other property. Today organ donation does not have any incentive mechanism that would motivate people to undergo surgery. In fact, if they decide to donate an organ to an unrelated person, they only face a loss in the form of a long recovery and potential health risks. With the introduction of a free organ market there will be a monetary incentive, which in addition to the altruistic motives can encourage people to donate their organs. Lastly, the system of allocation in general will be much more transparent and the monetary mechanism of organ distribution will eliminate or reduce the need for maintaining waiting lists, monitoring, and penalizing illegal operations related to the human organs.
However, it is important to consider that the reality of the world is not fully reflected by the economic theories. Firstly, it is hardly possible to create a purely competitive market, since it is necessary to develop an interface between patients, who wait for organs, and those, who are willing to donate. The role of such interface will be played by a few big companies that are likely to monopolize the market due to high entry barriers and the sophistication of the business environment. In this case, prices in the market will not reflect the true value of the organs, but will also include the price premium of the monopoly, which can be very high due to the urgent nature of the product. Hence, market liberalization will not eliminate the shortage of organs but will only redistribute profits. The introduction of prices can also create complexity in allocating the organs of people, who die without having provided clear instructions regarding the beneficiary of the money paid for their organs. The time it takes to identify the new owner and the legislative complexity can become detrimental for the activity such as organ transplantation, where fast reaction is a key to success.
Additionally, there are many more small aspects that either augment the benefit of free organ markets or increase its cost. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate the issue very carefully before making a conclusion about the benefits and costs of a free organ market.
Human morals and values
In general, organ donation is considered a moral and a highly regarded act that helps to save or prolong lives of fellow human beings. The main concern from the ethical and moral points of view is the monetary motivation behind donation.
Human morals and ethical values create a strong incentive to oppose the idea of free selling and purchasing of human organs. Firstly, this idea suggests that it is possible to put a price tag on a human life like on any other commodity. This notion is both unacceptable by most religions and is hard to acknowledge for individuals (Territo & Matteson, 2012).
Secondly, an open market for organs can stimulate illegal behaviour. Thus, it will create additional incentives to deny healthcare and to deliberately and prematurely disconnect patients from life support. The decision to become a donor will be also subject to external pressure and unlawful deeds. Freedom of selling and purchasing organs can create vast opportunities for abuse, especially on the international scale, thus making poorer countries continuous suppliers of human organs.
There are numerous ethical concerns regarding the unfairness of the market distribution of organs. Free market will create a wide gap between the rich and the poor, where the rich will be able to afford organs, while the poor will be only on the donor side. Although this would create an additional opportunity for underprivileged people to gain additional income, the need for money will likely make them undervalue the risks connected to the surgery. This is especially true if donors do not possess the knowledge about the consequences of the surgery and there is no information transparency in the system. This fact does not only refer to the recovery and immediate health hazards, but also to the potential risks in the future, which are likely to reduce the donor’s ability to live a full life.
In my opinion, there is definitely a need to address the scarcity of human organs and to remove some of the restrictions on the organ donations. However, at this point it is much safer to simplify the procedure of using organs of the deceased people, thus avoiding the moral conflicts and the possibility of arbitrage related to the donation of the organs by people, who are still alive.
Mankiw, N. G., & Taylor, M. P. (2006). Microeconomics. London, United Kingdom:
Thomson Learning.
Territo, L. & Matteson, R. (2012). The International Trafficking of Human Organs: A
Multidisciplinary Perspective. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group.
