One of the most interesting and debated topics in the field of medicine is the commercialization of organs. It is such an interesting topic as both the proponents and opponents have supporting evidence to back up their claims. Since its inception in the 1960s, organ transplantation was meant to improve lives, but not rake in more cash from innocent patients. Although, commercialization is the order of the day, organ transplantation should never be commercialized.
Organ transplant is the surgical extraction of a vigorous organ from a healthy person and transferred to a person whose organ has failed. Due to the high demand for organs, medical professionals have upgraded their way of doing things. Several processes are undertaken for an organ transplant to be successful. They include diagnosis, selecting a transplant program, removal from a qualified donor, organ transfer and finally therapy. It has pros and cons.However, following prescribed instructions makes the exercise life changing.
Motivating organ donors with gifts is said to have worked in the USA. Some low-income people argue that commercialization of organs may help to pay loans, rents and may accord someone a better life. However, it is demeaning and will bring a social warfare. It will enlarge the gap between the rich and the poor. Apart from bringing in social warfare, organ commercialization will also make the poor unproductive as performance in one`s place of work may be reduced. Katrina (2014) claims that the wealthy patients will continue living not because of the selfless acts of the donors, but because of their wealth.
In this era of commercialization, putting price tags on everything is the norm. However, putting price tags on human organs is detestable. Why should it be allowed? Patients will be forced to bid on the prices for these organs. It will not only bring exploitation and blackmailing, but also subject patients to irrecoverable illness that could have been avoided. Another reason to oppose it; the poor will retail their organs to the medics at very low prices while the ``mighty medics`` continue to flourish at their expense. Kanniyakonil (2005) proposes that organ transplant should be done out of deep love and not for financial reasons. Kanniyakonil(2005) puts emphasis on this and goes ahead to portray a patient who failed to get a kidney donation from family and friends, but got it from a schoolmate.
Every leadership in any country is tasked with the role of ensuring equity among its nationals. It is tasked with the role of ensuring availability of better health services to its nationals irrespective of the social class. Waldby& Mitchell (2006) claim that organs are natural resources, and should only be used for the public good. Waldby & Mitchell (2006) go ahead to propose that a voluntary donation of organs could protect the dignity of the human body. Motivating individuals with social security incentives to lure them into donating is abominable. Jeremy (2014)disagrees with this act and even asks whether people want to differentiate the poor from the rich by computing the number of their kidneys.
Among the most trusted service providers are the medical industry. Any patient entrusts the doctor with his/her matters as it`s very personal.Any patient’s illness or information is very secure. With the commercialization of organs, people may lose trust in these professionals. One may even question a diagnosis, and confuse it with a profit making track. To prevent this kind of a scenario, commercialization of the organ transplants should never be tolerated.
In conclusion, people in need of organ transplant should not be allowed to pay a donor. It is unethical and paints a bad image of the medical profession. If it were the case, the rich would be surviving from their wealth while poor patients would be hospitalized and eventually die due to lack of finances. It will change the situation from being a lifesaving moment to a profit making venture. Therefore, it should never be allowed.
References
Kanniyakonil, S.(2005). Living organ donation and transplantation: a medical, legal, and moral theological appraisal. Kottayam: Oriental Institute of Religious Studies India, Dept. of Publications of PaurastyaVidyapitham.
Chapman, J. (2014). The Opinion Pages, Room for Debate. The New York Times. Retrieved October 19, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/21/how-much-for-a-kidney/fix-the-system-dont-swap-it-for-the-free-market
Bramstedt, K. (2014). The Opinion Pages, Room for Debate. The New York Times. Retrieved October 19, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/21/how-much-for-a-kidney/buying-and-selling-organs-would-create-an-economic-class-war
Waldby, C., & Mitchell, R. (2006).Tissue Economies: blood, organs, and cell lines in late capitalism. Durham. Duke University Press.
