Al Christian Agngarayngay Ethics 1

Organ Selling July 26, 2019

The Market of Body Parts, its Democracy and Morality

Questionable morals have been the major trade-off for modern technologies. In medicine,
such advancements introduced organ transplantation, which easily and eventually became a
controversial discussion among practitioners. In theory, the altruistic way of securing an organ in
the form of “donations” takes the topic out of moral or bioethical discussion. The agreement of
both parties to donate and receive a certain organ locks the room for no further debate and
consensus provides a democratic relief to this dilemma. However, more often than not, the case is
that there will always be more demand in a market where the supply is in the form of charity,
especially it is human organs we are talking about.

The discriminating market of organs

In lower income countries, the increasing demand for organs birthed the market of organs.
Regardless of legality, there lies the ethical issue of selling organs—should be people be allowed
to sell their organs? Should we be allowed to put monetary value to our own body parts? The
democratic relief is offered once again in the form of consensus; if the seller of an organ willingly
decides to sell their organs, then no transplantation practitioner is entitled to question its morality.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it ignores the situation of the seller, no one is willing
to sell crucial parts of their body unless it is the only choice they have in order to put a meal on the
table.

Its ethically issues lie in the idea that it further perpetuates the discriminate nature of organ
procurement. No one from the upper class will sell an organ to the lower class, and no one from
the lower class will be able to afford it. In this perspective, the market of organs creates a dystopian
society wherein the poor serve as organ reserves for the rich in exchange for temporary financial
relief. Given these, the dilemma of organ selling falls differently depending on the factors and the
practitioner involved.

The truth about organ procurement

As a child, I grew up with horror stories told by the adults in hopes of making me wary of
strangers. One particular myth was about a woman who wakes up with medical patches on her ribs
and a telephone by the side with a note that says, “Call 911”. She realizes her organs were stolen
and murder was not the intention. Such story isn’t at all impossible in the real world, there have
been cases wherein people become victims of murders and kidnapping for organ procurement.
With this possibility, it becomes a problem of morality and ethics for practitioners to operate with
illegally procured organs.
 Given that, a few have offered the idea of having an “ethical market”, wherein organ buy
and sell business is only done and regulated by a single government institution. This way there
may be less room for discriminating organ distribution and exploitation of lower income countries.
At first look, it solves the ethical dilemma of organ procurement but leaves alone the ethicality of
the act itself.

Do we have the right what to do with our organs? If we can get tattoos, piercings, and other
acts that prove our body is our own temple, then are we also allowed to commodify it? If we can
legally expose ourselves to health risks such us excessive drinking, smoking, or binge-eating junk
food, then isn’t that on the same level as selling an organ?

On a personal level, my moral standing on the issue is grounded by class analysis. The
altruistic option which involves donating to a loved one or putting all your organs for donation
when you die, is no longer an issue of ethicality. On the other hand, the market of organs is another
story. The fact that such market exists is a proof that the present system is problematic and not
working—selling and stealing as well as killing for organs are not acceptable in a functioning
society. Unlike other health risks, it is not done by pure absence of discipline or addiction but
rather a desperate measure in a desperate circumstance.

This is similar to prostitution or sex industry—I do not condemn the illegality or

demonizing of sex workers, however, it is important to note that such industry is thriving because
of high demand and supply. Even if one is to say it is their own choice to opt for a questionably
moral work, chances are, it may have been their only choice. Another example is child labor—
while it is illegal, a lot of lower income families may not have the luxury of even debating the
morality of their choices. These are the cases fairly on the level of organ selling.

Practitioner’s dilemma

That said, the act of organ selling is a separate discussion from organ transplantation. For
medical practitioners, the moral issues appear right in their own field—what is the right thing to
do?
In one of our lessons, we tackled about taking into the account ‘duty and obligation’ when
deliberating, which suggests our values connect with our duties and obligations. Moral principles
may not be in line with what we do, for the right thing to is not always good, and the wrong thing
to do is not always bad.

As an outsider and non-practitioner, it will be easy for me to stick to my principles and not
support the market of organs. However, for medical practitioners whose actions are first foremost
dictated by their duty and obligations, the dilemma of transplantation from procured organs
becomes a blur. Their duty is to provide for the patient at hand, the life at risk, regardless of external
consequences it may create. Let us say a doctor is to perform an emergency transplant which he
knows is illegally procured (with source undisclosed), should the doctor follow the hospital
protocol on legal matters? What if the patient is at the brink of death?
 Such questions are perpetually a debate on bioethics. At particular circumstances like that,
morals and principles become merely a matter of doing versus not doing. Their choice may
sometimes disobey internal protocols, other times it may disobey intrapersonal beliefs. Similar to
how a number of sex workers, child laborers, and organ sellers are trapped in their own
circumstances in the society that gives them no choice.

The endless cycle it creates

If we support the market of organs, either be it through “ethical” ways or not, we are merely
normalizing the idea that human dignity is equivalent to market goods. It is terrifying to know that
it may be possible for the market of organs be as prevalent as the abusive physical labor market.
Both serve the needs and wants of the upper class and comfortably ignores the situation of the
lower class with the excuse of “democratic choice” of their means of living.

Furthermore, support for the market of organs in the name of democratic choice is
somewhat counterproductive and in reality, an anti-poor measure. It does not offer any
sustainability and instead dangers functional physical health. Health should not come at the
expense of someone else’ health, especially that of a poor man, as it only perpetuates that notion
that healthcare is for the wealthy, which will spiral back to another dilemma of biomedical ethics.

Bibliography

Chudkosky, A. (2018, April 15). 5 Principles in Bioethics. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nn3MFbVU-U

ProfTurtle7544. (2019, January 31). ETHICS 1 Module 2 study guide (Aug 2018) Nature of Ethics
and Moral Reasoning.pdf. Retrieved from
https://www.coursehero.com/file/37365580/ETHICS-1-Module-2-study-guide-Aug-
2018-Nature-of-Ethics-and-Moral-Reasoningpdf/

Richards, J. R. (2012, May 10). How transplants are causing ethical dilemmas. Retrieved from
https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/05/transplants-causing-ethical-dilemmas.html

Robson, H. (2015, May 23). Bioethics: Buying and selling organs. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pG4UXr_LIQ