On the other hand, the opposing side believes that people do not have the right to sell their organs to those who need them. Multiple people believe that you do not have the right over your own body. The OPTN/UNOS Ethics Committee suggests that the “Opponents of financial incentives point out that there would be potentially decreased emotional gain for the donor family, decreased respect for life and the sanctity of the human body, and a loss of the personal link that currently exists in the donation process” (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network).
People should be generous, and be willing to give away their extra parts to those who are in need of said parts. Those who oppose the buying and selling of organs at Santa Clara University proclaim that “society may have a duty to preserve life and relieve human suffering, but not by any means whatsoever. In particular, society should not adopt any practices that would create injustices or would violate the rights of individuals” (Velasquez).
Those against selling human organs believe that people do not have the right over their bodies for financial gain. They believe that if one wants to donate an organ, he or she should do it altruistically for the purpose of preserving life. Another belief of the contradictory side is that there are far better solutions to an organ shortage, and that society’s first option to fixing the organ shortage should not be to sell organs. There are increasing numbers of new technology that will allow doctors to fabricate organs in a lab—the 3D printer for example.
One nature article claims “the advent of three-dimensional (3D) printing has generated a swell of interest in artificial organs meant to replace, or even enhance, human machinery” (Ledford). The 3D printer is a revolutionary concept that would allow medical professionals to print organs or anything that a patient might need for that matter. There is even a way to create these fabricated organs with the patient’s own remaining healthy cells.
If further testing and research would be done, this new frontier of medical science would make organ donors obsolete. This technology of the future would produce countless organs and tissues so anyone that needed new organs could get them and there would be no waiting. Heidi Ledford further goes on to say that 3D printers can make organs “tailored to fit individual people, and [are] made-toorder” (Ledford). The 3D printer would solve the world’s organ shortage and save an exponential number of people.
A belief of this side is that selling and buying organs from people is not the answer; the answer is in the universally new 3D printer and that this new technology will end the shortage of organs for the world. The final opposing point is that if the sale of organs was legalized, then those in third world countries and those in lower socioeconomic classes may just sell their organs to try to get out of their economic situation or they may even try to convince their young children to sell their organs because the family is struggling to get by.
If people were allowed to sell their organs for money, an incredible portion of the United Statesparticularly those of lower socioeconomic class—would rush to their local transplanting center to donate their organs for money. Furthermore, they may try to get their children to donate for more money. In third world countries, there would be an even larger influx of organs because they could deceive children to donate and bring in money. An extremely disturbing outcome could possibly be that people start kidnapping others and harvesting their organs in hotel rooms.
If the sale of human organs was legalized, it is possible that mass chaos would ensue. One article claims that things like this would happen if humans could sell their organs, “and experts say it could — it might jump-start a dangerous trend in which lower-income groups were disproportionately targeted or incentivized to give up their marrow and people with rarer blood types demanded more money for their valuable cells” (Park). When one is required to donate his/her organs, this is called forced transplantation.
One article claims that “the practice of forced organ removal was a violation of the principles of free volition and non-obligation that made donation an act of charity and ‘social togetherness” (“Respected Surgeon Urges Others to Speak Out Against Forced Organ Donation in China. “). If the sale of human organs was legalized, people would take advantage of the money system. People would not just donate out of the goodness of their heart they would only be in it for monetary gain. Furthermore those of lower socioeconomic status would get taken advantage of in the new system and would rather have their organs donated than having a real job.
In closing, to sell or not to sell human organs that is the question. There are positive attributes to each opposing side. A bountiful group of people just in the United Stated alone would have been saved and would possibly still be alive today. There are some downsides to each side, but that is with any issue. All in all, the procurement of organs is becoming increasingly hard to supply because of the exponential demand. However because society is fearful of being able to buy organs it will be a long time before the sale of human organs is legalized.
I think that people should be allowed to sell their organs. If people were allowed to sell their organs it would boost the economy, make transplant lists outdated, and it would save more lives than it would harm. There is no harm in compensating people for getting sliced open and having an organ removed. I honestly think that this should have been done a long time ago. Overall, I believe that people should be able to buy organs because it would provide us with a better world of giving and receiving.