Abstract
In this essay, an argument is present about what side of the organ trading topic one disagrees with: either Ninos Malek’s, or James Childress’.
The weaknesses of the chosen disagreeable argument are presented and discussed: the danger of a “business” of organ trading to not be equally accessible for everyone; the challenge of proper legislation and regulation for it; the risk of making it a source of easy profit for the poor or for addicted people, like gamblers; the fact that it won’t eliminate the black market, but only change the targeted public; the fact that previous contracts for after-death harvest of organs may be used as false for profit, the need for nomination of relatives for the decision-making after the person’s death that may not agree with the contract; the consequential expenses of all these complexities, and the ridiculous comparison with driving, or leisure activities, when talking of surgical procedures that also need to be regulated, which is also complex.
Keywords: organ trade, Ninos Malek, James Childress, ideas, argument.
Although Ninos Malek presents a valid set of arguments in favor of a sell and buy system for human organs, his theory has some flaws, or weaknesses.
The first argument Nino Malek presents, the mutual beneficial exchange between the donor and the receiver, brings out the question of whom, how and following what standards would set the rules for the organ trading “business”, so that it would be fair and with equal access for anyone, instead of becoming a “highest bidder” kind of situation? Because the organs’ distribution and sell “business” should not be about the people who pay more for it, but about the people who need it more. This argument seems to carry some greed aspects with it. And joining hands with it, the high probability of becoming a searched source for easy income for the poor ones, or even addicted (like gamblers) that can present themselves as suitable for it.
Also, when talking about the decrease of the black market organ trading, although he may have a point with his idea of establishing a legal organ trading system, it would not eliminate the black market trading, but instead, instigate a change in the way it operates. Related to the argument posed before, believing that this sort of “business” would be very probable of becoming an elitist one that would not benefit equally the citizens who required it, the black market would rapidly become one where organs would be harvested anyway, this time to be sold at lower prices to the people who could to afford to buy them the legal way.
On another hand, the organ harvest after one’s death by signing a previous contract, so that it would reflect in receiving that money, prior or after the death is equally complex; first of all, receiving the money for organs that will be harvested later can become subject of fake contract signing to receive the money and later on the annulment of it; second, the contract signing is done by the person who, after death, is no longer present to keep their word, being the relatives the ones who are responsible for the it, which means these have to be named prior to it, bringing up possible disagreements and difficulties in sealing the trade contract and more expenses; furthermore, the relatives who are left to deal with the “business” to be concluded may not agree with the whole thing itself, taking the reliability out of the process.
Finally, the comparison that Ninos Malek makes between the risk-taking of undergoing these surgeries for organ harvesting during lifetime and bungee-jumping, or driving is in itself ridiculous; driving has a whole set of rules established to be one safely, together with a penalty system for those who don’t follow it, and bungee-jumping, or a roller-coaster, are leisure activities. So, there is no sense on establishing parallels between these situations and surgical procedures for organ harvesting, which are medical; besides this aspect, what would be the legislation for ensuring proper surgical conditions and staff to perform it?
Conclusion
In conclusion, the organ trade “business” is not an easy idea to put in practice and it brings out corruption, specific needs for legislation, regulation and careful planning.
It can be easily converted into an elitist benefit that not all can access; a source of profit for the black market, targeting the poor and all those who cannot afford it; the poor can also start to use it as source of easy income, just as addicted people who can present themselves as suitable donors; it may be annulled by the relatives who do not agree with the harvest of a person who signed a contract for it after death and, thus, not a reliable source for organs, becoming instead a source of legal expense.
This is not a subject to be taken so lightly and even less comparable to activities, like driving, or leisure.
