Essay Example on The Commodification of Body Organs: How Technology Transformed Healthcare

Back in history, no clear law clarified property rights on the human body and its organs. Advances in participatory science, biomedical, and bioengineering trigger the idea of the commodification of body organs (Hausleben, 2013). The transition in the medical field has sophisticated procedures and improved the therapeutic outcome for different conditions. The surgical department in the healthcare institutions has received a significant boost in operations with the advent of new technology that facilitates successful organ transplants improving the quality of life of individuals. However, inadequate organ donors are a challenge to the success rate in donor transplant cases. The main argument arises on the accessibility of the body organs for transplant. Should body organs be classified as property? Answering this question provides an insight into the ethical considerations surrounding the human body and its parts. The case of Hela cells obtained from the cervical tumor of Henrietta Lacks is one of the significant breakthroughs in medical research progress. However, the situation presents the big question of who owns our bodies, genomic components, and the commercial products derived from biomedical research. What is wrong with selling one kidney to save a life as well as improving individual economic status? Property can be primarily defined as wealth or possessions under specific ownership. This paper presents an affirmation that organs are to be considered property because they are things you always carry with you; they meet the basic definition of property. There are ways to sell your organs like other forms of property legally.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The modern society is rooted in the values of political and social foundations strongly linked to the philosophy of liberal democracy. In a liberal world, liberty and property are protected, which provides the ground for selling body organs to improve social welfare. Why should there be restrictions on body organs while an individual has the property rights for his body? Why interfere with the individual’s liberty? The lists of patients waiting for transplants are continually rising, an attribute of the shortfall in the supply of organs for transplantation. Relaxing the restrictions against the sale of the body boost the supply of body organs and improve the medical outcome for the long lists of patients on waiting lists of human organs. The waiting list for human body organs for transplant has declined due to a decline in interest from the uncompensated donors. People die prematurely from increased suffering and organ failure while there exist solutions to an improved quality of life. In addressing the sale of body organs, the pro-choice laws advocate pro-life, using market forces to improve the supply of body organs as inhumane. However, the process is humanitarian-oriented, focusing on the pursuit of good health for modern society. The moral and practical grounds on the sale of body organs form the basis of the argument of most legislators while others borrow from the contribution of religion. Libertarianism characterizes the society as a whole with human beings living in total freedom. However, the forces of liberalism are put to question when an individual is denied the right to acknowledge his kidney, liver, or heart as his property. Why can't the owner dispose of his organs (property) any time he, please? The argument on body organs as personal property digs further into the ethical grounds for allowing abortion. Abortion entails the removal of part of the body. This event gives women unlimited rights to destroy a part of her body. Still, it denies someone else an opportunity to dispose of one kidney that can save a life as opposed to life lost in the fetus's termination.

According to Voo and Holm (2014), debates on the treatment of organs as the tradable property is based on the liberal democracy's provision of freedom and the need to curb the shortage in organs for transplantation. Most laws allow for organ donation but limit the sale of similar products. However, the decline in transplant organs calls for alternative approaches to increase the tally of organ donations. Bodily ownership needs to be integrated into private property ownership in advocating for freedom and possession of the body. Voo and Holm (2014) advocate for full liberal rights of ownership as well as individual liberty with respect to the body and its parts. Property ownership is different from self-ownership. The human body is connected to its components with humanness and may indicate human dignity. In this case, it is argued that the human body is exceptional and should be treated with dignity rather than other material possessions. The main challenge to organ transplant is not the lack of transplant organs but the ethical concern behind the acquisition of organs like raw material within the bodies of other people.

Can body organs be treated as tradable or inheritable property? The answer to this question lies in the ethical, practical, and moral views. The sale of organs can be regulated to meet the diverse demands of the long list of people in need of a transplant. A conflict of interest can arise in case a family member needs the same organ. The family member has a better chance of acquiring the organ. However, according to Taylor (2014), an organ is tradable but not inheritable. On the contrary, Voo and Holm (2014) advocate for inheritable organs, arguing that family members represent the natural successors in case of death. Therefore, preservation of the social good of the family intergeneration can be promoted through organ inheritance. In some cases, family members may want to preserve the body for proper burial and connection with the dead. However, this is a selfish approach that allows for the destruction of valuable body parts. In this case, it is irrelevant to retain the inheritability of the organs. Why destroy useful body parts with many people in need of them? Voo and Holm (2014) opposed the idea of inheritable and tradable body organs based on the family interests and moral integrity associated with organ trade. However, families, especially those near the poverty level, may want to sell the organs of their loved ones to improve their economic status or because it would be in the interests of the deceased to sell to preserve family integrity and welfare.

On the other hand, if the sale of a kidney is animated by monetary profit, it is arguably less harmful as both parties benefit from the exchange. Minimal health risks are associated with organ transplants, while the organ receiver has a better experience from the products. According to Lawler (2006), most transplant cases result in deaths as opposed to abortion cases advocated for by pro-lifers. Why should buying and selling embryos be encouraged while the sale of body organs is limited? The moral concern behind the sale of a fetus equally matches the sale of any other body organ. Where is the need to encourage the sale of embryos and not protect the embryos from termination?

Lawler (2006) cites that organ transplants at someplace turn the donor into a patient. The accuracy and precision of the surgeons can alter the physiological functioning of essential organs during the organ harvesting process. In this case, it is not worth commodifying organs to deteriorate the health status of the donor. The organ transplant process is associated with financial prowess with insurance covers, not including such services. The beneficiaries of the services are therefore limited to a few individuals with enough resources who can afford the surgeons for the transplant and the cost of the transplant.

Advancements towards justice have been boosted through the illegalization of body organs. This presents an opposing idea concerning the treatment of body organs as property. Treating body organs as alienable property threatens respect for universal human rights. When the question of who owns our bodies arise, it is us. What stops someone from selling the entire body into bondage if a part of the body can be sold? The monetary value associated with the sale of body organs raises concern over the rise in human trafficking. Human trafficking and organ harvesting for the black market violates universal human rights and American law (Moore, 2018). In this case, human beings can be valued in monetary terms diminishing human dignity and society's morals. Commodifying human body organs gives room for increased atrocities, immorality, and loss of respect for human life. Investing in human body organs eliminates the goodwill in the donation process and attaches the monetary significance of the organs. Besides, the organs are auctioned to the highest bidders and deny the privileged in the society from accessing good medical treatment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the question of the commodification of organs is highly debatable with diverse opinion realized across different points of view. The practical, moral, and ethical perspective on body organs as property criticizes the perception and position of human beings with respect and integrity. However, morality also questions the destruction of body organs instead of saving a life or improving the quality of life of other beneficiaries. Disposal of the body with viable body organs that can save other lives is a moral, ethical, and practical concern. A society based on liberalism advocates for freedom and liberty. Each need to independently decide how to treat his body and organs. The sale of body organs increases the supply of transplant organs and can improve the donor's social and economic status. The decision on organ donation should be left to the owner. Body organs are located within the body and qualify to be the owner's property. Therefore, body organs should be treated like any other material property, and the owner should be accorded all the rights over the body and its parts.

References

Hausleben, H. (2013). Property Rights in Organs–An Argument for Commodification of the Body. https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship/350

Lawler, P. (2006). Is the Body Property? The New Atlantis, (14), 62-72. Retrieved June 4, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/43152285

MacKellar, C. (2014). Human organ markets and inherent human dignity. The New Bioethics, 20(1), 53-71. https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=95516287&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s8333196&groupid=main&profile=eds

Moore, J. (2018). I'm Not for Sale: Teaching About Human Trafficking. The Social Studies, 109(2), 74-84. https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofs&AN=129717298&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s8333196&groupid=main&profile=eds

Taylor, J. S. (2014). Organs: tradable, but not necessarily inheritable. Journal of medical ethics, 40(1), 62-62. https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=92982898&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s8333196&groupid=main&profile=eds

Voo, T. C., & Holm, S. (2014). Organs as inheritable property?. Journal of medical ethics, 40(1), 57-61. https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=92982897&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s8333196&groupid=main&profile=eds