Organs for Sale

In the reading by Moniruzzaman, he paints a picture of how organ trade works and how because of the conditions that it is conducted in and the nature of how the program works, it is detrimental to those who participate in it – the donors, sellers, and possibly the recipients.

It is because of these conditions that he suggests that organ trade is morally impermissible. However, if I’m not mistaken, the conditions in which he is describing these conditions are that of the black market. I think it goes without saying that anything without legalization or proper backing from the government or some kind of authority cannot be done well. In this case, I do not think that the moral permissibility of organ trade can be shown here. The conditions described involve: involuntary participation, uninformed consent, lack of financial means to sustain a living, all of which are only found in the black market. Also, somewhere in the article, Moniruzzaman draws similarities between moral permissibility and the amount of money it would take to improve the organ trade program.

The conditions that Moniruzzaman brings up are more of a challenge to the efficacy of the organ trade program rather than moral permissibility. I think that with proper funding, the program could be improved a significant amount such that all the parties involved face no harm, or very little harm. At least in that position, there will be entities dedicated to reducing the risks involved in organ transplants, and whatever that goes wrong can be solved by law, or be compensated for accordingly. Not having organ trade legalized will only increase its viability in the black market, therefore perpetuating the current conditions. A proper program would consist of voluntary participation and informed consent, and a safe environment at the very least.

In addition to that, whatever failures the program may initially face calls for more support for improvement rather than the abolishment, because it is something that can be rectified and because it serves the greater good. With that in mind, I think that just because a program might fail, doesn’t mean that it should be stopped. An example that came to mind was, if a student shows poor behavior in school for something like bullying, I don’t think it really makes sense for him to be suspended. If anything at all, that kid should be given more school, and more education to correct his mistakes. In both these case, both parties show a lot of promise, organ trade looks to save lives, while the kid my example is a potential candidate to run the world of tomorrow. Neither party can do it without proper guidance or the means to improve. 

Having said that, legalizing it will not only improve conditions, but decrease the viability of organ trade in the black market. Because if consumers know that there is a safer, and more insured alternative of getting a transplant, they are very likely to pay a little bit more money to get their money’s worth. Especially since the other alternative is illegal and dangerous. And the act of legalizing organ trade (with the protection rights and what not) will increase prices buy a significant amount, that I think that donors who are donating out of desperate need will be able to get more money for their organs, thus improving conditions on both ends. This is because the legalization will only introduce new things like a set price for organs. At least this way donors can make the decision themselves as to whether or not this sale is wroth their while or not, or at least give them a gauge so that they can make comparisons across trade markets.