ILLEGAL ORGAN TRADE

A Science writer’s criticism on a man who exploited poor Indian workers for selfish reasons: “The organs were harvested from poor Indian workers, many of whom had been tricked or forced into selling the organ for as little as $300.”( Bhattacharjee)

Exploiting the poor is a prevalent occurrence in undeveloped nations because there is a huge gap between the rich and the poor. In these nations the poor feel compelled to save their families by any means possible and often resort to desperate measures. However, in other cases many were tricked and they usually end up getting paid way less then what their organs are selling for.

“Under a rule approved by the Chinese government in 1984, kidneys and other organs were harvested from executed prisoners. Human rights activists became concerned that China might have been ramping up its executions through the 1980s and ’90s in order to boost its organ supply.”( Bhattacharjee)

This practice seems especially problematic because in a desperate measure to obtain as many organs as possible the Chinese government was imprisoning people for no legitimate reason. Human rights activists felt strongly about this wrong doing because it went against their beliefs. This group aims at protecting the rights of all humans and imprisonment strips all the rights from a person. For that reason this group worked strongly to combat the legislation that was in place at the time. As a result, both science writers and human rights activists unintentionally worked together to combat the illegal organ trade by fighting for what they believed in. For one group the fight was through strikes and for the other the battle was won through scholarly articles and scientific evidence.

Alongside Human rights activists and science writers, the government has implemented various acts such as the The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 which made it “illegal to offer or receive payment for organ transplantation”( Healey) and the Transplantation of Human Organs Act of 1994 which “banned the buying and selling of organs in order to combat the exploitation of the poor.”(Bhattacharjee) This however, only drove the business underground where the prices for organs were even more absurd and only the extremely wealthy could benefit.

Although, the government tried to solve the issue by enacting different laws that made it illegal to buy or sell body parts it appears as if their whole scheme was counterproductive. A black market not only allows for people to go against the law but also further hurts the poor by inflating the prices on the different body parts. Despite this drawback, the government does make up for it by trying to incentivize donations. By doing this the government tries to provide its society with the principal of egalitarianism. This is the only way that a state can be seen as fair which seems to be the goal of the U.S government. In other areas equality is not something they aim for and there are governments that think putting a price on human organs should be legal.

Many international organizations, as well as professional associations, have called on countries, health authorities and transplant procurement systems, to take measures to “protect the poorest and vulnerable groups from transplant tourism, and the sale of organs and tissues, with special attention to the wider problem of international trafficking in human tissues and organs.” ( Bagheri and Delmonico)

The driving force against the legalization of organ buying/selling appears to be the concern with the lower class. Various of the groups stated above feel it is not fair for those who can not afford organs to simply die waiting for a donor. Finding a solution to the problem is also an issue because not even the government can stop the participants of the black market. As a result, this issue has not only become a domestic problem but it has spread globally. Even though other areas of the world such as Europe have the same stance on the topic, most of their legislation only applies within their borders. If the whole world is not on the same page or can extend its policies beyond its borders the black market will continue to thrive due to the lack of cohesion on the matter.

That said, there are others who believe that the organ trading should be legalized such as philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards. Richards stated that “it was a fallacy to view the trade in terms of the “greedy rich” and the “exploited poor.” Such misplaced moral indignation, she wrote, “leave[s] behind one trail of people dying who might have been saved, and another of people desperate enough to offer their organs thrust back into the wretchedness they were hoping to alleviate.”

From a philosophical standpoint Richards views do make sense to some extent. When morals are brought into the argument it is safe to say that there are always going to be people who would love to sell their organs if it means helping someone else. But philosophical ideologies vary from one philosopher to the next, and an argument that is just as valid is that it is immoral to put a price on a human. Organs, of course, should not be witheld due to the conflict on whether it should go to the rich or the poor because its better to save some lives than to have them all die. However, if organs were a market the rich would be able to buy them and survive while the poor would slowly die off. This is not fair especially since people do not get to choose the class they are born into.

Similarly, economists argue that “a capitalist system is crucial in order to keep the supply and demand of organs at equilibrium.”( Rinehart)They claim that by putting a price on organs it would “incentivize their supply” although it would eliminate those who could not afford to pay those prices from the market.

Ethicists who oppose this market system also oppose a rationing system because not everyone who needs an organ can attain one and because its not available to everyone the question becomes: ‘who should be the first to get an organ?’ and its unethical for any one group to make that decision since peoples lives are on the line. ( Williams and Torrens)

Although there are various groups that are against the legalization of organ trading and a few that are all for it, the only thing that is certain is that if a system is not developed that can successfully meet the demands on organs then a black market will continue to flourish. One thing all of these groups can agree on( even those that are in favor of the legalization of the organ trade) is that a black market does not help anyone and simply favors the rich and exploits the poor. It makes sense that an economist would favor its legalization because financially it would create and industry that would thrive due to such high demand. However, because of the laws in place and the ethical concerns with the idea of putting a price on humans, the legalization of this market seems far fetched as of right now. The black market is really only helping the rich but the poor participate because of desperation in their struggle for survival.