Technology and globalization are usually associated with good news to the world. One of the advantages attached to technological advancement is improved medical care, as characterized by the introduction of the new technology of organ transplant to save human life. The introduction of organ transplant in the field of medical care was driven by the concern by doctors on the increasing number of avoidable deaths caused by failure of certain body organs of the patients. However, the fact that organ transplant can save life has been hit with numerous critics; especially from religious leaders who have various arguments against it. For instance, critics argue that organ sale is against human dignity and violates equity (Kishore, 2005). Besides, most jurisdictional laws have failed to mitigate organ trafficking. Despite these oppositions, it cannot be ruled out that organ transplant is an essential practice in the field of medical care due to its life-saving power. In this regard, this article proposes that the government adopts “opt-out organ donation” policies in order to curb organ trafficking while providing organs to the needy to save their lives. Essentially, organ sale should only happen when there is need, and only when the life of the donor is not exposed to any risk. That means organ sale should not be perceived as a money making venture, but a lifesaving activity.
It is no longer a science fiction that various organ transplants may be performed successfully to save human life. However, due to the current critics and jurisdictional laws, organ transplant has been viewed by many individuals as an ethical issue and hence the practice has been facing serious opposition globally; and the overall effect is serious global organ shortage resulting into numerous avoidable deaths (Kishore, 2005). Most nations, including developed nation like the United States, have been faced with a great challenge posed by the shortage of available organs for transplant. For instance, statistics indicate that on July 10, 2004, a total of 2004, 86173 patients were in need of organ transplant (Kishore, 2005). Further statistics indicate that United States witness an average of seventeen deaths related to lack of organs for transplant everyday (Kishore, 2005). This translates to the death of one United States person in every eighty-five minutes due to organ shortage. In 2002, the United States registered only 3043 patients who successfully received organ transplant while all the other 9601 went missing the organ transplant opportunity (Kishore, 2005). This means that about 9601 patients faced death threats, as they entered the year 2003 with serious health issues due to lack of available organs for transplant.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A similar situation of shortage of organ transplant is witnessed in other developed nations, such as Germany, Belgium, Slovenia, Austria, Netherlands, and Luxembourg (Cohen et al., 2004). For example, German and Netherlands registered a total of 9479 and 1182 patients in need of organ transplant in 2003 respectively. Out of the 9479 Germany patients in need of the organ transplant, only 2111 received the organ transplant; meaning that the rest 7368 patients faced death threats due to lack of organ transplant (Cohen et al., 2004). Netherlands on the other hand had only 406 patients undergoing successful organ transplant while the rest 776 facing death threats due to lack of available organs for transplant (Cohen et al., 2004). Worst of it all is that the figures of the people dying due to lack of available donors for organ transplant are increasing every year (Kishore, 2005). Again, given that these data are collected from developed nations, worst is expected from underdeveloped nations. Therefore, scarcity of organs for transplant continues to prevail and this has caused many serious reputations.
The main consequence of lack of enough organs for transplant in medical institutions is avoidable deaths (Shimazono, 2007). Most family members are not able to donate required organs for their patients for two main reasons. First, they have the similar genetic make-ups to the patient and may not be reliable to donate the required organ, since they could be facing similar health problem. Secondly, the family members may fail to get a volunteer to act as a donor. Therefore, such a patient lacks organ transplant and finally dies. Another reputation of organ scarcity is organ trafficking. If a particular patient who is in need of organ transplant is wealthy, he or she may pay a lot of money to the donor leading to possible organ trafficking. India is one country that has witnessed a large number of citizens involved in organ trafficking (Kishore, 2005). Unfortunately, organ trafficking is aided by clinicians, clinical managers, middle men, and even state officials (Kishore, 2005). Therefore, however statutory laws may be strict, organ trafficking is inevitable. The final problem associated with lack of available organs for transplant is kidnapping and murder of both children and adults with aim of “harvesting organs” (Kishore, 2005). Therefore, lack of available organs for transplant is one of the main causes of rampant cases of missing persons in the world.
The idea of organ sale has been perceived as an iniquitous and sinful act by many people, especially the religious leaders. Those opposed to organ transplant argue that human body is composed of perfect supply of organs and respective tissues that are capable of carrying out life processes of each human being (Rohter, 2004). With such, critics argue that doctors should exploit all possible ways of making each individual’s body organs support their own life. Unfortunately, these critics fail to appreciate the fact that God created human beings with the brains in order to utilize them to continue God’s creation. Organ transplant is therefore, one way of using the talent accorded to doctors by God in order to save God’s given life. In fact, organ transplant should be considered as fair and natural practice which is consistence with normal human behavior ( Siegel-Itzkovich, 2003 ). Instilling strict laws against organ transplant has no moral value and its reward is death of millions of innocent people; not because the organs are unavailable, but because “morality” restricts them from having access to the organs ( Siegel-Itzkovich, 2003 ). Therefore, the world has witnessed many avoidable deaths due to the outdated policies that limit organ transplant.
The best action any nation may take is to introduce the opt-out donation policies (Samuel, 2017). This means that any resident may choose to be an organ donor, as long as the process does not violate their rights or endanger their lives. Nobody should be forced to donate body organs and financial coercion should not be used. Thus, everyone within the state should be considered a donor in order to curb the problem of high demand for various organs such as the heart, liver, and kidney (Samuel, 2017). Opt-out donation policies have worked well in nations that Spain, Croatia, and Netherlands (Baraniuk, 2018). Statistics show that these countries have effectively managed to reduce the demand for organ transplant. For instance, Spain has used the law of presumed consent to reduce her organ shortage by thirty percent (Baraniuk, 2018). The idea has therefore, been used successfully to save the lives of many productive people who later contribute greatly in raising the economy of the nation.
A normal man would wonder the rationale used in transplanting organs like heart and liver. For the situation of kidney it is understandable, as a normal human being has two kidneys and may donate one and continue surviving on the other kidney. However, for the case of the heart and liver, doctors have the mechanism to identify when a particular person totally dies mentally; and using the law of presumed consent, they extract their vital organs which are then transplanted to the needy patient (Baraniuk, 2018). This is necessary for two reasons. First, the body organ of a dead person continues to contribute towards the economy of the nation by keeping a useful member of the nation alive. Secondly, the family of the diseased may receive a compensation fee for the donated organ (Baraniuk, 2018). The money paid to the family may be used to serve vital purposes like educating the children, making sound investments in order to take care of the family in future, or to cater for the burial ceremony of the diseased. Therefore, organ transplant from a diseased should not be perceived as a show of disrespect to the diseased, but a way of fostering the living standards of the family of the diseased, especially when the diseased leaves behind small children.
Those who argue that acting statutory laws to legalize organ sale with some monetary compensation is against human dignity have a point. This is because some people have misused the opportunity to earn their living. What such critics forget to consider is that even though organ sale for monetary gain may be prohibited, organ trafficking still continues. In fact, worst cases, such as abduction and murder of both children and adults to extract their organs have been witnessed worldwide (Kishore, 2005). It is possible that some parents and guardians have been involved in abduction and murder of their children or family members in order to solve their financial crisis. Such crimes could be prevented by simply assuming everyone is a donor unless communicated otherwise by relevant authority. The issue of commercializing organ donation should be mitigated not necessarily by depriving the needy people of their genuine wants, but through enforcement of efficient agencies (Kishore, 2005). Organ sale should therefore, be legalized as long as it does not violate the general rights of both the donor and the receiver.
In conclusion, biotechnology has helped greatly to give hope to those destined to die due to failure of some of their vital body organs. Before biotechnological advancement, failure of functioning by some essential body organs such as liver, kidney, and heart equaled to death, but nowadays organ transplant play a key role in ensuring that people survive past the failure of their body organs. The idea of organ sale has been met with a lot of resistance by some individuals, especially religious leaders who give two main claims against organ sale. First, they argue that sale of organs is against human dignity; and secondly, sale of organs violates human equity. However, this article has established that the claims against organ sale are fake and outdated. This is because organ transplant is a demonstration of God’s given talent used purposely to save human life. It is therefore, recommended that all nations embrace the opt-out donation policies in order to effectively curb the problem of numerous avoidable deaths caused by shortage of available organs for transplant.
References
Baraniuk, C. (2018). UPDATED: Spain leads the world in organ donation. What’s stopping other countries catching up? (Online).Retrieved from https://mosaicscience.com/story/spain-uk-organ-donation-transplants-liver-kidney-heart-lungs-surgery-nhs/
Cohen, B., Smits, M., Haase, B., Persijn, G., Vanrenterghem, Y., & Frei, U. (2004). Expanding the Donor Pool to Increase Renal Transplantation. 20(1): 34-41.
Kishore, RR. (2005). Human Organs, Scarcities, and Sale: Morality Revisited: Journal of Medical Ethics. 31(6) : 362-365.
Rohter L. (2004). Tracking the sale of a kidney on a path of poverty and hope. New York Times . 1: 1.
Samuel, L. (2017). To solve organ shortage, states consider ‘opt-out’ organ donation laws. (Online).Retrieved from https://www.statnews.com/2017/07/06/opt-solution-organ-shortage/
Shimazono, Y. (2007). The state of the international organ trade: a provisional picture based on integration of available information. 85(12): 901-980.
Siegel-Itzkovich J. (2003). Israel considers paying people for donating a kidney. 326 :126–127.
