Skip to content

Menu

Home / Debates / Law and Crime / Sale of Human Organs Should be

Legalized

Sale of Human Organs Should be Legalized

Should we legalise the sale of human organs?

All the Yes points:
1. We already accept the ethic of private healthcare. It is not
unreasonable that the seriously ill be …
2. The donor of an organ, or his family, will stand to benefit
considerably from the sale. Even the mos…
3. Legalisation of the sale of organs will eliminate the corruption that
has led to reported executions…
4. The specific virtues of a scheme of sale of organs is that each
transaction remains one of personal …
5. A legitimate market in human organs would not be inconsistent
with either public or private healthca…
All the No points:
We already accept the ethic of private healthcare. It is
not unreasonable that the seriously ill be …
Yes because…
We already accept the ethic of private healthcare. It is not unreasonable that
the seriously ill be entitled to spend their own money on saving their own
lives. It is preferable that some individuals receive organs, and survive, than
none at all. There is a spurious equality in everybody dying.The wealthy will
not be the sole beneficiaries of a policy of organ purchase. For each successful
kidney transplant operation, valuable hours on a dialysis machine will be left
vacant. The expense of palliative care for an individual requiring a transplant
operation will be eliminated.
No because…
There is no question of a state financed health service being able to afford the
prohibitive cost of purchase of organs. It is believed that a single kidney has a
black market price of $20,000. Consequently, the sale of organs will condone
the most gross discrimination between rich and poor. The opportunity for
those unable to afford to purchase to receive a donated organ will be
eliminated. Which family, if prepared to donate the organs of a relative, would
decide to decline an ex gratia payment of tens of thousands of pounds ?There
will not be a two-tier market consisting of sale and donation. The donations
will disappear and only the rich will survive.
The donor of an organ, or his family, will stand to
benefit considerably from the sale. Even the mos…
Yes because…
The donor of an organ, or his family, will stand to benefit considerably from
the sale. Even the most impoverished individual will not choose to donate
their heart or lung and thus die. Neither would a surgeon be prepared to
conduct such an operation. Yet, both a kidney and a piece of liver can be
removed without significant detriment. It is patronising to consider that the
individual cannot make a reasoned decision to donate or sell these organs.
The family of a relative recently deceased ought also to be able to choose to
save the life of another and simultaneously receive some remuneration.
No because…
It is already apparent that the black market flows in one direction ; from the
Third World to the First. The relative absence of regulation, and the
comparative value of the rewards means that healthy individuals in Asia and
Africa are victim to scavenging organ merchants. The financial rewards make
the decision to sell an organ one of compulsion rather than consent.Where
colonialists raped the land, the neo-colonialist surgeon steals from bodies.
Legalisation of the sale of organs will eliminate the
corruption that has led to reported executions…
Yes because…
Legalisation of the sale of organs will eliminate the corruption that has led to
reported executions and ‘thefts’ of organs. A successful transplant operation is
dependent upon knowledge of certain characteristics of the donor. Therefore
the origin of the organ must be known. The black market cannot be regulated,
but its purpose would be defeated once the sale of organs became lawful.
No because…
The opportunity for individuals and governments to gain considerable capital
for organs sold will lead to appalling human rights violations. Chinese judicial
officials are reported to execute prisoners on account of the black market
value of their body parts. The lawful sale of organs would legitimise human
sacrifice.
The specific virtues of a scheme of sale of organs is
that each transaction remains one of personal …
Yes because…
The specific virtues of a scheme of sale of organs is that each transaction
remains one of personal consent, and an incentive is provided to donate
organs. ‘Presumed consent’ is a euphemism for robbery. The donor card
scheme, by which individuals carry a card indicating their intention to donate
organs is scarcely a difficult or unknown means of showing true consent. In
the wake of the public outrage in early 2001 following the practice at Alder
Hay Hospital of removing organs from deceased children without the consent
of the parents, it is evident that a system of presumed consent would be
unacceptable. The victims of the system would be a family already grieving for
the loss of the relative.Any improvements to the efficiency of the donor and
transplant arrangement cannot compensate for the simple absence of organs.
The sale of organs would increase the number available at home and allow
surgeons to search for the parts overseas.
No because…
The sale of organs is a poor solution to a pressing problem. The BMA has
proposed a system of ‘presumed consent’. This scheme would allow doctors to
assume that the organs of a deceased patient can be used for transplant
unless the patient or his family have made a contrary request. Alternatively,
the BMA has advocated radical revision of the inefficient system by which
patients are matched to donors. The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) has proposed the development of a website that would link
patients, surgeons and donors nationwide. The BMA also envisages the
deployment of ‘multi-organ retrieval teams’ led by hospital consultants, in
order to ensure that any available organs are not lost from cadaveric donors.
A legitimate market in human organs would not be
inconsistent with either public or private healthca…
Yes because…
A legitimate market in human organs would not be inconsistent with either
public or private healthcare services. The transplant surgeon, the nursing staff
and even the pharmaceutical companies producing the anti-reaction drugs
receive payment for each operation performed. Why should the donor of the
organs, arguably the most important actor in any transplant, not also receive
remuneration ? The United States already tolerates markets for blood, semen,
human eggs, and surrogate wombs. Is there a moral difference between a
heart or a lung and an ovum ? It is remarkable that a lifesaving treatment
should apparently have no financial value.
No because…
The market in body parts that thrives in the United States is neither successful
nor to be welcomed. The sale of embryos, eggs and sperm in the United
Kingdom is prohibited by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
Surrogacy arrangements are not permitted. Blood is collected by voluntary
donation. The US regularly suffers the donation of infected blood, given by
diseased citizens compelled by the available reward. The paternity and
maternity litigation concerning egg and sperm donors, and surrogate mothers
is pervasive and persistent. Putting a price on the human body only invites
exploitation by the unscrupulous.
CategoriesDebates, Law and Crime, Moral and ReligiousPost navigation

Science: a Threat to Society?

Multiculturalism vs. Integration

 Subscribe 

2 COMMENTS

newest 
Author

Dave
 5 years ago

We would love to hear what you think – please leave a comment!

4

 Reply

Hannah
 10 months ago

  Reply to    Dave

Ummm… There are a lot of higher-grade words in these- maybe you could make them more
understandable for 6-7th graders?
-8

 Reply

Search for:
Popular Debates

 Should the Cell Phones Be Allowed in Schools

 Space Exploration Is a Waste of Money
 Homework Should Be Banned
  Do You Agree or Disagree With Euthanasia or Mercy Killing?
 Junk Food Should Be Banned
 Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places?
 Democracy Is the Best Form of Government
 Should Plastic Bags Be Banned?
 Is Modern Technology Good or Bad?
 Internet Brings More Harm Than Good

Categories

 Business
 Computers and Internet
 Culture and Entertainment
 Debates
 Economics and Finance
 Education
 Environment and Animal Welfare
 European Union
 Food and Drink
 Health
 History
 International / Global Affairs
 Law and Crime
 Life and Style
 Moral and Religious
 Peace, Security, and Human Rights
 Politics
 Psychology
 Science
 Society
 Sports
 Transport
 Work
Recent Conversations

Mollie on Should Humans Eat Meat?


 Migz on Should Smoking Be Made Illegal?
 Brenda Johnson on Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal
 Brenda Johnson on Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal
 Brenda Johnson on The Legal Age Should Be Lowered to 16
 Home
 About Us
 Contact Us
 Privacy Policy
 Sitemap
Copyright © 2021. DebateWise. All Rights Reserved.
Top