Creating a market for the purchase and sale of human organs for transplantation, even if it allowed supply to be adjusted to demand, would be a serious mistake. Even if the market were built fairly, it could not significantly increase the supply of transplantable organs, as donations would likely decrease if the sale were allowed. Such a market would create a relative disadvantage for the poor, who would feel disproportionate pressure to sell their organs than the rich. The ability to profit from the organs of the dead could incite murder or unless we could do to save lives. A market for organs in which parts of a person are considered commodities could lead to a general depreciation and rudeness of human relations. Any organ sales system would create an economic relationship between buyer and seller rather than a charitable relationship, leading to quality control problems. The economic system would replace the system of voluntary donors and weaken the altruistic bond that brings people together. Finally, an organ market poses a metaphysical threat because it degrades our body to the status of a commercial object. An alternative to the current voluntary donor system and an organ market is to start from passive consent to organ donation with the right to informed refusal. If there is no record of the deceased`s resistance to organ removal, if the next of kin objects if informed of the intention to remove organs, or if the deceased was a member of a group known to oppose organ harvesting, we should assume that a person is willing to donate organs after death, to save another person`s life. A number of policies adopted by developed countries provide a model for ensuring that living organ donors do not bear financial burdens.
For example, Principle 5 of the World Health Organization`s «Guiding Principles» on organ donation clearly states that «prohibiting the sale or purchase of cells, tissues and organs does not prevent the reimbursement of reasonable and verifiable expenses incurred by the donor.» The principle of non-commercialization of human organs has been enshrined in professional declarations such as the Istanbul Declaration and international legal instruments such as the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Organs. Since the convention was opened for signature in March, 16 countries have pledged to update their criminal laws to include its provisions, which include the purchase of organs and the use of organs purchased by surgeons in the definition of «organ trafficking.» The Department of Health and Social Services can help all organ procurement organizations become more efficient and effective. For example, transplant programs are justifiably concerned that their performance will be judged unfairly because no adjustments are made for the use of organs from high-risk donors. Such organs are therefore discarded even though some patients with multiple health problems would gladly accept them as a better alternative to dialysis. HHS can also promote practices that demonstrate our collective respect and gratitude to volunteer living donors and the families of deceased donors for their generous solidarity with patients in need. Organ transplant policies reflect a unique social paternalism. objections to the sale of organs such as; 1) the dilution of altruism in society; (2) the risk of deterioration in the quality of donated organs; (3) doubts about the voluntariness of those who accept financial incentives for donations, and (4) the treatment of persons and their parts as goods»10 do not reflect an objective approach. Recent critics of the organ market cite two main reasons for their rejection: (1) «the integrity of the human body should never be traded» and (2) a system is unethical «if it punishes the most vulnerable and intensifies discrimination in census» and creates «the risk of exploitation of vulnerable donors».11 Some are more skeptical, believing that the «poor in developing countries could become a vast reservoir» of organs. for the developed world12 and that the poor of a «hungry country» can never be «fully informed and self-reliant donors».13 Others argue that this amounts to «exploitation of potential donors».14 Unfortunately, the current U.S.
program is underfunded and too restrictive. This is a «means-tested need» where cost recovery is based on the income of both the recipient and the donor. «Financial neutrality» – the treatment of all financial costs to donors, such as travel for medical examinations prior to donation and loss of income during donation collection, such as other out-of-pocket expenses – should not depend on the donor`s assets, let alone those of the recipient.
