Currently, many people die from organ-related diseases. The organ supply is insufficient compared to the demand. Hence, the legalization of organ sales has been suggested and discussed. Those in support of organ sales assert that these transactions could be regulated through a closely watched organ market, and they believe that this system will help the poor who are in need financially. However, the shortage of organs is not enough to break the old and well-established custom.
Organ sales should not be legalized because they will engender deleterious results such as decrease in the number of donors, exploitation of the poor, and commodification of the body. Supporters focus on the shortage of organs and insist that the supply will be increased by the legalization of organ sales. They expect this practice can solve the lack of organs. According to Robert Sade, sales of kidneys will save lives of many patients who have to have kidney transplants, and the number of kidneys to transplant will increase gradually also (19). Wanting the financial incentives organ sellers will increase in number.
Furthermore, prices of organs will reduce because more organs will be available on the market. Nevertheless, the price will still be expensive since organs are not products people can make. Poor patients cannot buy organs, and they will need to wait for an organ donation. Legalization of organ sales is predominantly for the rich. The system should not to be conducted specifically for the benefit of wealthy people because there are people in the middle and lower classes in need as well. Thus, the authorization of organ sales cannot be a solution for organ diseases. Another disputable aspect of organ sales is the decrease of organ donors.
Extrinsic motivation changes pure intention of donors and recognition of their activity (Rothman 1525). Sheila Rothman introduces Titmuss’ study regarding blood donation, which is a famous analysis over the tension of an extrinsic versus intrinsic intention. Titmuss deals with the commercialization of blood which generates a suppression of altruistic activity and an undermining of community spirit. In other words, incentives for blood donors weaken the benevolent intention. Titmuss explains his hypothesis by comparing blood donation in England, which did not grant selling blood, and the United States, which allowed the sale of blood.
As a result, the number of donors and the amount of blood increased in England. But donation of blood declined in the United States (Rothman 1525). The results of this study predict the possibility of a downturn in organ donation in the market. The sale of organs raises the question of the organ sellers’ purpose. For instance, an old man carries laboriously two boxes of bottles to a recycling center even though he knows there is no reimbursement for the bottles. His action is admirable because he cares about the environment. On the other hand, if the recycling center reimburses one bottle at a nickel, how are ideas shifted?
Although his original purpose is worrying about nature, perhaps admiration changes to sympathy for him. He can be viewed as a poor and pitiful man (Rothman 1525). Donors’ original pure intentions can be mistaken like with the old man, and payment can decrease organ donations. Considering this potentiality, it is difficult to believe the legalization is a proper key for the shortage of organ transplants. The one truth which we can predict definitely is who will be a seller. Most of the sellers come from the lower class and lower-middle class.
Arthur Matas says more poor people will sell their kidneys than the rich people because of financial incentives. The more severe concern is exploitation of the poor in third world countries. They will be major kidney donors for citizens in developed countries (2010). Most of the people who want to sell their own organs probably owe money, and they are likely hounded by creditors. In that case, the poor do not have any choice to pay off the money. Also, it is possible for cruel lenders to threaten them to sell their organs. The definition of exploitation is “selfish utilization” in a dictionary.
To allow the legal organ market will engender the exploitation. Finally, the system will draw the poor to the edge of a precipice. Another significant argument is that organ sales generate the concept of commodification of the body. Organ sellers, who are mostly poor people, would be treated as those who deserve to deal with their body parts. Trade in organs is losing human dignity and degrading ourselves (Matus 2011). The legalization can save patients’ lives, but when the system is maintained further, the next generation thinks they can naturally buy organs from the poor.
They perhaps consider organs of human as products, which they can buy easily. In brief, the organ transaction eventually leads to commercialization of the body, which depersonalizes human being. Consequently, saving lives of organ disease patients is so important and valuable, but sale of organs have counterproductive effects such as decrease of the donors, exploitation of the weak, and commodification of the human body. It seems dangerous to neglect these hazardous factors of organ sales. One fact is that legalization of organ transactions can be an irreparable mistake in human society. Therefore, the organ market should not be accepted.