Argumentative essay (Essay Sample)

No Justification for Selling Human Organs Student's Name Institutional Affiliation No Justification for Selling Human Organs The debate on whether to legalize selling of human organs has raged on for a long time. On one side, there are the vocal supporters of legalization who view it as the panacea to the incessant demand for human organs. To them legalizing the sale would curb the coercion that is inherent in the trade. Furthermore, even when outlawed, black market is thrives (Gregory 2011). On the other side, there are those who view legalization as the ultimate move to deprive human beings their dignity. They argue that by selling their organs, human beings server their own essence of humanity. To them, one ought to donate an organ, altruistically, for this has more honor and dignity. This paper will demonstrate that in spite of its growing appeal, selling human organs is disturbingly immoral and unacceptably degrading because it diminishes the totality of a human being. In their defense, the proponents of legalization have cited the fact that the trade thrives in the black market, anyway. Their argument is not bereft of merit. They quote the rising number of people reporting coercion, threat and intimidation as another reason why the society should contemplate legalizing it. However, Chia and National Council of Churches of Singapore (2009) argue that this is the same reason for which the society should forbid its legalization. If the methods for collecting these organs are rife with cruelty, it is defeatist to argue for its legalization. Furthermore, arguing that failure to legitimatize the trade would lead to a boom in the black market is also defeatist. Going by the same logic, one would wonder why the legalization advocates are not calling for similar treatment to other vices. For instance, legalizing drug trade is progressive because it would reduce the prevalence of drug trafficking. The proposition that legalizing sale of human organs would provide institutional framework to regulate the trade is fallacious as it is unfounded. Kunin (2005) a leading proponent of legalizing, argues that as it is, the black market is self-regulating, with no commensurate benefits to donors. He continues that the enactment of legislative framework would standardize prices, protect donors from intermediaries, and make the business more human. This argument is unpersuasive for various reasons. Weitz (2013) points out as long as donors lack legal representation, they do not have immunity from exploitation. This will lead to a situation where the rich can exploit the poor with wanton abandon. The other reason against legalization surrounds the pricing of human organs. Proponents of legalization have bundled about various figures, with respected authorities citing $50,000 (Kunin, 2005). One would argue that the amount is big and alluring to many people, especially in developing nations. However, opponents, such as Chia and National Council of Churches of Singapore (2009) argue that human organs are priceless. Putting a price tag on a body organ is disparaging one's body, dehumanizing self, and diminishing the value of humanity. A proponent would ask whether the disabled, disfigured, and those who have lost an organ through accidents are less human (Kunin, 2005). This is hardly plausible. Making a conscious decision to sell an organ is not equitable to loss of a body organ through other means. The main point, in this case, is conscious sale of a body organ. Moreover, people sell their body organs for frivolous reasons. Chia and National Council of Churches of Singapore (2009) cite the case of a student in China who decided to sell his kidney to buy a smart phone. If legalized, people will be turning up at hospitals to sell an organ to get money to buy pleasantries or fit in a certain class. More importantly is the question of justifiable grounds to sell a body organ. One would ask whether a desperate young man who wants to sell his kidney to finance college education is justifiable (Kunin, 2005). Similarly, it would elicit a debate as to whether a poor man in India who sells a body organ to buy food for his family is doing the right thing. Poverty, or any other reason, is no justification to sell a body organ. Research shows that majority of people who sell their body organ hardly achieve their initial financial objective (Weitz, 2013). They end up more desperate and without an organ. The money cures neither their initial problem nor cover for the damages that would emanate from transplant. Donating a body organ is an act of altruism and never about profit orientation as proponents of legalization are advancing. To their defense, the proponents cite data from medical institutions that show large disparity between people who need organ transplant and those willing to donate (Kunin, 2005). Their conclusion therefore is that to meet the demands in hospital, there must be a financial incentive to the process. Whenever profit is the main incentive, people can do incredulous things. There are those would offer an organ oblivious of the health complications that may arise. It is remains an altruistic undertaking, people will do it out of conviction rather than convenience. Commoditization of human organs is immoral, unethical, and grossly inhumane. By legalizing organ sale, human beings would turn into hunters of other human beings in pursuit of a body organ that will translate to financial fortunes. Proponents of legalization argue that as things stand, the black market runs on coercion and threats. As Gregory (2013) argues, more and more people report to selling organs against their wish. The subterfuge of informed consent is rife with deceit, failure to make full disclosures, greed and ignorance. If legalized, erstwhile timid individuals who run the black market will gain the temerity to intimidate and coerce. To get a finer perspective, consider human experimentation in developing nations. Cherry (2005) argues that this experience offers useful insights on why legalizing will not reduce coercion in human organs sale black market. Poor and vulnerable people will remain at the mercies of unscrupulous intermediaries and rich men. If legalized, trends in the public market will gain legitimacy at the expense of the rule of law. By admission of proponents of legalization like Gregory (2011), the black market runs on the rule of the jungle where might is right. Poor and ignorant people are at the mercies of underworld machinations that have little regard for the law. As Cohen (2002) opines, there is no guarantee that the regulatory framework will give the business a humane face with semblance to dignity and respect to all human beings. If left to the market forces, poor donors will not have immunity against exploitation. Additionally, it will not cure the habit of people seeking to transplant organ in hideous places away from the glare of the public. As experience from other sectors demonstrates, legalizing something does not cure the maladies that were inherent in it (Cherry, 2005). As such, legalizing sale of human organs would certainly not make it better for anyone. Legalizing sale of human organs goes against the "Do No Harm" doctrine. Medical ethics demand that doctors and other medical practitioners should only do that which does not inflict harm on human beings. Cohen (2002) argues that selling human organs cause harm to the donor, mostly because it is rarely with informed consent. In developed nations, organ transplant results to little complications and mortality. However, with legalization, more people will present themselves for transplant and it is very likely that this will result to more complications and mortality. It is commonsensical that with more people waiting in hospital to sell organs, unqualified clinics will spout and more people will die. Concomitantly, developing nations are experiencing high mortality during organ transplant. In India for instance, out of a sample of 100 donors, 90 reported complications after ...