Human Dignity and the Organ Trade
Organ donation is a gracious act that adds more years to a sick individual’s life as it allows them to live a longer and healthier life. Those with end-stage heart, eye, or kidney diseases live longer than those who receive other treatment methods such as dialysis or oral medications. The problem is that there is a shortage of organs for transplantation all over the world. The list of patients waiting for donors run in the hundreds of thousands, with about 100,000 of them waiting for kidney donors alone. This has led to questions about the possibility of purchasing organs for transplantation, spawning debates in terms of the moral, ethical, and legal issues concerning the trade of organs. Selling and buying organs impinges upon the dignity of the most vulnerable. The sellers suffer a loss of dignity both in how they perceive themselves and how their neighbors perceive them.
MacKellar (2014) asserted that there is indeed a high demand for organs, but the issue is that demand is higher than the supply (p. 53). For instance, reports revealed that there is “an estimated 120,000 patients in the US waiting for an organ, with this list growing at a rate of almost 5,000 individuals per year” (p. 53). As the demand is higher than the supply, the growing proposition from healthcare managers, physicians, and ethicists is to introduce a “regulated system of payment for organs” (p. 53), with the idea that when financial incentives are in place, more individuals will be encouraged to sell their healthy organs to address the organ shortage and help save sick individuals. This is where the issue of human dignity and commoditization of organs come in. Moniruzzaman (2012) emphasized that “organ commoditization is seriously exploitative and ethically reprehensible, as organs are extracted from the bodies of the poor by inflicting a novel form of bioviolence against them” (p. 70). He cites the People’s Republic of Bangladesh as an example where organ trading has become a way of living for some of the poorest members of society. Despite laws prohibiting the selling and purchasing of organs and body parts, it is undoubtedly a growing business in the country (p. 71) considering that advertisements can be found in newspapers. Most of the time, these people are ill-informed about the true effects of selling their healthy organs for money. Thus, after selling their organs, people usually feel bad about themselves knowing that their actions are detested by society. In many cases, they don’t marry anymore out of disgrace or humiliation (Moniruzzaman, 2012, p. 79) and fear of being ostracized by their families and by society as a whole. Still, there are some who say the cause of their agony is in realizing how they have desecrated the body that God has given them (Tadic, 2007, p. 1).
The loss of dignity due to organ trade and the eventual embarrassment and disgrace falls under the second quadrant that states, “Rethinking the dignity that humans can acquire (or lose) through a sense of self-worth” (UNCC300 Module 3: Putting the Human in Human Dignity, 2015, p. 12). The main thought here is how man loses dignity because of their poor choices and decisions in life. However, the responses in such situations might differ depending on how the individual views the situation. For instance, some people might consider this situation a very shameful act, which results to a “complete loss of their sense of their own dignity” (UNCC300 Module 3, 2015, p. 12). In this case, the more they will allow their dismal circumstances prevail rather than do something about their situation. On the other hand, some would respond more positively and attempt to improve their lives through other means. Thus, despite having committed what others would think as a dismal action, they are able to rise above their situation. Therefore, in this context, losing in one aspect of an individual’s multidimensional persona should not mean a complete loss of human dignity because there are still varied ways on how the person can turn his financial circumstances for the better.
When this perspective is taken alone, some issues arise in understanding the viewpoint. Medical anthropologists are greatly against the commoditization of organs and body parts, stressing that this practice takes advantage of the underprivileged sector of society since most of them are poor and are in the “business” of selling their healthy, or even unhealthy, organs in exchange for money” (Moniruzzaman, 2012, p. 71). This is what Moniruzzaman (2012) calls bioviolence or the procurement of “fresh organs from a subset of the population” (p. 72) and the exploitation of the body, whether in parts or as a whole, as a means to an end (p. 72). It is masked in the belief that sellers are able to help prolong the life of another individual, but to the detriment of the seller’s health and dignity. They are made to believe that they can eventually function even with only one kidney and still be healthy (p. 75). After the whole process of harvesting their healthy organs, they return to their old life of poverty and debt. They are scarred physically for life, in addition to the social stigma of having sold their organs. This aspect is what has a profound effect on human dignity because people know for a fact that vending organs is illegal, and yet still push through with the act. Knowingly committing a disgraceful act already adds to man’s diminishing self worth and confidence, which leads to believing that they have lost their dignity in the process.
In viewing this issue in a multidimensional understanding of human dignity, it is vital to note that it “is both inherent and acquired” (UNCC300 Module 3, 2015, p. 15) and one that man strives to achieve in life. Human dignity is the one thing that man holds dearly because it is the only free, but important aspect of life that can make or break a man. Because human dignity is something that man already has, then it is man’s responsibility to uphold this dignity in whatever ways he or she can, not only in oneself, but in others as well. A shameful act should not define who or what the individual is because life is full of chances that will allow man to start over. In instances when man was not able to defend his dignity, it does not end there because man can always strive to re-acquire his lost dignity and make up for it in future actions and in the manner in which he chooses to live his life. In the case of people who trade their organs, properly educating them about the pros and cons of organ trading will help them make better choices and decisions in their lives. To those who have already sold their organs, encouraging and treating them with dignity and respect can help restore their dwindling self-respect, especially in the eyes of society. Therefore, education about the issue should not be limited to those who trade their body organs, but to the whole of society, too, because society is one of the factors that pushes man to lose belief in oneself. Thus, by focusing on man’s inherent goodness, worth, and capacity to change, man can still have a bright future and be of value to society.
References
MacKellar, C. (2014). Human organ markets and inherent human dignity. The New Bioethics, 20(1): 53-71. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1179/2050287714Z.00000000043
Moniruzzaman, M. (2012). Living cadavers’ in Bangladesh: bioviolence in the human organ bazaar. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 26(1): 69-91. PDF.
Tadic, E. (2007). The cruelest cut – Pakistan’s kidney mafia. Journeyman Pictures, aired on Dateline, SBS, June 13, 2007
UNCC300 Module 3: Putting the human in human dignity. Australian Catholic University 2015. PDF.
