Ethical Issues in Organ Transplant in Tormented Prisoners (Essay Sample)

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Organs for transplants – Ethical issue with harvesting organs from condemned prisoners
Under the Chinese law, organ harvesting is illegal but through a 1984 regulation it allowed it became legal to remove organs from condemned criminals with prior consent from the prisoner or the relatives. This regulation was subjected to ethical abuse ranging from corruption and coerced consent. Human rights groups and medical groups led demonstrations against the practice. In 2007 the Chinese government banned the trading of organs and declared that prisoner organs should only be used by members of the immediate family of the condemned prisoner (Munson 35). The current paper will review the current ethical issues in harvesting of prisoner’s organs for transplantation.
The debate about the legality of prisoner’s execution is out of question but to the issue is determine whether organs from legally executed prisoners should be used for transplantation. International organizations including the European Renal Association, Asian Transplantation Society, and the Transplantation Society have condemned use of executed prisoner’s organs by citing expulsion for any state that goes against the statement.
Ethical issues include:
Ethics must be considered in organ transplant, for example, balance of harm should be determined for a person to die due to renal failure or obtaining a kidney from a prisoner who is already dead by the due legal process. Aristotle defined a virtue ethics as a compromise between two vices. For example, as bravery is a virtue, foolhardiness is a vice on one end and cowardice is the vice on the end (Munson 53). Also pride s classified as a virtue but its deficiency is undue humility while in its excess it called empty vanity. Likewise, pride is a virtue but its overindulgence is empty vanity while its shortage is undue humility, and so forth for other virtues. In addition if the government allows the condemned prisoners to donate their organs for transplanting, this would give an un-allowed incentive that would encourage execution of prisoners hence violating human rights. The likelihood of that any person or group of persons to receive a death sentence to give organs should be objected.
Informed consent
The right of informed consent for the condemned prisoner may be violated where theoretically institutions claim that they had consent. Aspects of coercion and undue inducement to consent may also be witnessed especially because the execution situation is of great shame to the prisoner or the family. In China, blood samples and other tests for tissue typing are taken without informed consent and this violates the principle of autonomy and individualism. Virtue ethics issues arise because the prisoner is not awarded the chance to acquire happiness by making important decisions to exploit their last virtue by consciously consenting to donate their organs. Such virtuous actions would be to give back to the society to which the prisoner committed bad acts. The author says that it is only in theory that prisoners and their families give consent to donate organs after execution of prisoners but this would change to allow the prisoner to be compelled by virtue ethics to donate
If organ donation is connected to potential gain to the prisoner and to the family then the consent process is considered flawed. The use of the term "harvesting" shows that there is a large upsurge towards a non-organized process of obtaining organs from prisoners to satisfy the high demand. The supporters of harvesting of prisoners organs argue that in China the pressure towards personal autonomy is not strong and the family is consulted instead as opposed to the west where personal autonomy is more valued (Hunnicutt 12). The consent of the family and the claim that coercion of the family would not be necessary to increase the supply of organs.
Plan of executions for purposes of obtaining organs for transplantation
The health official’s urgent push to acquire new sources with about 1.5 million people requiring organs every year may make executions to be organized to exclusively obtain organs for transplantation. It would be an unethical issue to undertake executions that would regularly not take place in an effort to obtain organs in the short run. Virtue ethics should forbid the doctors from collaborating with the legal system to impose executions even in no-violent cases for the sole purpose of obtaining organs. Provided there is organ transplant, then prisoners will always be executed for organ transplant because the society considers them better dead than alive. The supporters or the organ donation, the medics, argue that transplants are not limited by the number of prisoners from whom to obtain organs but by the escalated cost of immunosuppressive drug.
Condone and exploitation of execution.
The government step to license newer and old hospitals to undertake transplants but swear not to use organs from executed prisoners condone and exploit execution is a hypocritical issue because ethical issues would still arise when black market organ sales rise to provide convenience for wealthy patients (Munson 221). If execution is viewed as morally wrong to undertake execution in a given country, then use for organs obtained from such a process may perpetuate the process which is an ethical issue. Those in support of prisoner’s organ donation would argue that the utility of the process should be maximized for the society overall good. That the prisoner is awarded the chance to reward the society and that donating may solace the families for which the criminal committed an offence against.
Selling of organs for profit
Even after banning of use of organs from executed prisoners in public hospitals there would be a rise in a black market organ trade and organ tourism hence selling organs for profit is an ethical issue. There is evidence of buying of organs for "hard" currency from international tourists posses an ethical challenge to the country. Ethical standards may be assumed with the increased demand and licensing hospitals that undertake to undertake organ transplant. Provision of organs to organs tourists would be against the virtue ethics because it would lower the ability of the country to cater for the needs of its population, and therefore it is not undertaken for the common good. China and other nations prohibit taking of organs from minors and other similar groups and export them to foreign nation’s claims that selling the organs should not be condemned but the abuse and exploitation that may surround it should be minimized to reduce the opposition to the selling of organs. There would be an escalated load on the local community resulting from the exploitative donations made to overseas countries. Organ donation by prisoners should be prohibited because encouraging the prisoner to donate organs through informed consent would result allow the prisoner to redeem himself from his bad avts through organ donation. This would undermine the purpose of execution because it turns the prisoner, maybe a murders, into a hero.
Execution may be modified to fit into the donation strategy
The execution process, time, and style of condemned prisoners may be modified to fit into the donation strategy without taking care of the human rights of the condemned prisoner. For example, in china death by bullet at the back of the head is practiced to facilitate the donation or execution is undertaken with donation in mind. Supporters argue that the crucial issue is whether the method used to harvest organs might cause an increase in the level of suffering for the prisoner or the family. They argue that processes like psychological torment or perfusion of organs before execution with the aim of preserving the organs would be a bigger issue. The details of the executi...