Disability is closely associated with globalization. Davidson (2006) comprehensively analyzes organ trade, in which bodies are viewed as commodities in the global market. His exposition further highlights the effects of both wealth and poverty in the trade. Likewise, he cites that there are substantial consequences of the silence on organ trade and disability. This is due to specific facets of globalization, in particular, the dissemination of a competitive market-based economy and the subsequent privatization of health care. The two phenomena create a power structure that is based on wealth and privilege, thus manipulating poor persons for their organs. These individuals are consequently incapacitated by not only the nonexistence of an organ but also their productivity in the community. On the other hand, the health complications that result from the donation more often than not propagate the indebted state from which the donors were expecting to free themselves in the first place. This essay, therefore argues against the increased cases of illegal trade in organs.
The legislation against the sale of organs dates back to a 1985 World Medical Association dictum. Subsequently, the principles against body organ moneymaking ventures were drafted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1991. However, in spite of these measures, the practice is still rampant, and money still changes hands especially in the black market (Wilkinson, 2004). For instance, a substantial percentage of kidney transplants involve payment to non-related donors of different nationalities. These revelations introduce the international angle of the organ trade (Garwood 2007). A kidney can be bought from a donor for approximately $1,000 - 3,000. The same can also be sold for up to $40,000. This difference is a clear indication that a huge market-driven divide exists between the parties involved in the market (Cohen 1999). The difference in the amount paid to the donor and the final market value of a kidney is as a result of the competitive, profit concentrated market economy that has been fortified by globalization.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The supply and demand for organs in the healthcare system is driven by pressures of a competitive market-based economy. In this regard, the private medical sector competes with the free national healthcare system. This results in a competition for organs between the free health clinics and the private ones. Since the financial incentives in the private sector are much higher compared to those in the public sector, the private clinics are more aggressive in the procurement of organs. They also end up charging more in a bid to make more profit from transplant procedures (Cohen 1999). In 2009, Levy Izhak Rosenblum a resident of Newark, New Jersey, was the first person to plead guilty of organ trafficking in the United States (U.S). This is after Rosenblum admitted that he assisted U.S. residents in obtaining organs from Israeli donors for $120,000 and even more. In his defense, his lawyers maintained that he was saving lives and that both parties were fully cognizant of the risks and problems that came with transplants, donations and living with one kidney.
China introduced a new set of guidelines in 2007 in an attempt to crack down on the sale of organs (Watts, 2007). The country provides a unique example of the flow of organs and money. Likewise, China is the only country in which organs removed from executed prisoners are used in organ transplantation. In spite of increased protests against this practice by human rights activists globally, China has not relented. Some people have argued that the reason behind the insistence on the trade is that the nation is currently a hub for wealthy foreigners who are in need of transplants. This group can pay up to $30,000 for an organ and thus injects a substantial amount of money into the Chinese economy. The Chinese healthcare system is progressively market-driven. Subsequently, hospitals are under increased pressure to generate more revenue. Due to this, the hospitals are more likely to ask fewer ethical questions regarding the origins of the organs used in transplantation (Watts 2007).
Globalization affects two separate groups of people, both of whom may be categorized as being incapacitated. The first group consists of those in need of organs and is further divided into two sub-groups. The first sub-group comprises of the affluent private clientele, while the second one comprises of the locals who are often ignored in efforts to serve the richer individuals. The second group is composed of the organ sellers. The latter group is the most oppressed by both the economic and healthcare systems. These people are compromised due to the removal of an organ and disabled since they are often left in debt. Furthermore, the group may be comprised of unproductive members of society due to lack of quality and affordable medical care, both before and after the removal of the organ. The wealthy, mostly foreign, beneficiaries of organs cannot be left out of the disability dialogue as concerns about trade in organs intensify. The wealthy foreigners buy their way to the top of the waiting list, using organs meant for the locals suffering from similar chronic disorders. This group can also afford to travel long distances and to pay hefty sums of money for the organs, while the locals that are dependent on public health care lie in hospital beds waiting for their turn to receive the much-needed organs. The rich foreigners are a target market for competitive businesses in the healthcare industry (Scheper-Hughes, 1998). This is because they are capable of paying at least double what the local insurance pay for the locals. Globalization has no addressed this disparity. Rather, it has fostered a competitive economy as exemplified by the healthcare systems, aggravating the problem. Disability in individuals is introduced, to a debatable degree, by the society. For instance, the already frustrating conditions of the locals on the waiting list are intensified by the lack of social backing of the current schemes. To a great extent, this has been fueled by globalization.
The mode of payment used in the organ market continues to raise a red flag. This is because many of those who are willing to sell their organs are mostly poor, and thus highly susceptible to exploitative offers (Scheper-Hughes, 1998). On the other hand, if the organ is detached and transferred in an unprofessional manner, both parties are highly vulnerable to intensified risks following the procedure. For instance, the donors may develop additional complications, and since they are financially unstable, they might lack the means of treating the resultant medical conditions. It’s highly unlikely for an individual who has a steady source of income to sell a kidney or any other organ. Globally, it is the less fortunate persons that end up selling their organs to raise money. Thus, in part, the beneficiaries most often take advantage of the donor’s financial situation to obtain a cheap organ (Scheper-Hughes, 1998). In the Philippines, the practice of selling kidneys is so rampant that it is possible to have a whole town whose inhabitants have, in the past or presently, willingly sold their kidneys to make money. While a few have improved their family's financial situation with the money obtained, the majority end up spending their earnings recklessly. Numerous groups of people disagree with the idea that donors are forced by their financial situations to sell their organs. They argue that although poverty may be the key reason, it doesn't mean that these donors are unaware of the dangers involved. Therefore, in as much as poverty may push them, it should not be an excuse since they can make a sound decision regarding the matter.
The organ trade has altered the way bodies are seen by debt-collectors. The image of a gang breaking the legs of a debtor is typical. In India, organs are perceived as a different kind of surety for debt collectors (Cohen 1999). The view that body parts can and should be transacted for currency is also evident in the thought processes of the creditors. In Pakistan, people give away organs such as kidneys since they have no other way of making money. This scenario is occasioned by the prevalent work system, which is tied to possessions that are owned by those that are financially better off (Garwood 2007). Without the means of earning a living, the Pakistani donors sell their organs to improve their lives and financial standing.
The health care system neglects the needs of impoverished donors both before and after organ replacements. This in turn creates a community of incapacitated people. The globalizing economy has increased competition between private establishments and public entities such as hospitals. This has exacerbated the disparities and orders that are already present, especially in the developing nations (Wilkinson, 2004). On a global scale, activists are rooting for the development of clear regulations of healthcare structures and a changed focus on preventative medicine so as to evade complications that lead to organ failures. The disabled community that is involved in the organ trade, as well as those who are products of it, will significantly benefit if the suggested changes are implemented. This is because the changes will help in breaking down the class pecking order, thus offering support to the needy individuals and subsequently making quality healthcare accessible to all. Since poverty and deprivation are the primary drivers of the trade in human organs, interventions that address the financial standing of the donors are the only way of dealing with the ethical issues surrounding trade in organs. In conclusion, illegal trade in human organs is unjustifiable. However, failure to address its drivers renders efforts to curb the vice fruitless.
References
Cohen, L. (1999). Where it hurts: Indian material for an ethics of organ transplantation. Daedalus , 128 (4), 135-165.
Davidson, M. (2006). The Work of Disability in an Age of Globalization (p. 117). Routledge, New York.
Garwood, P. (2007). Dilemma over live-donor transplantation. Bulletin of the World Health Organization , 85 (1), 5-6.
Scheper-Hughes, N. (1998). The End of the body: The Global traffic in organs for transplant surgery . University of California.
Watts, J. (2007). China introduces new rules to deter human organ trade. The Lancet , 369 (9577), 1917-1918.
Wilkinson, S. (2004). Bodies for sale: Ethics and exploitation in the human body trade . Routledge.
