Organ market globalism
Countries such as China and India have prospered with the help of jobs outsourced from the US. When there is an excess of need in one country and an excess of supply in another, both sides benefit–or so goes the economic mantra. But what about the trade of human organs?
There are some obvious problems with organ markets: the potential for coercion, exploitation, and bodily harm to the seller, just to name a few. Vigilant policing in a legalized system could (at least theoretically) keep these harms in check. But according to Nir Eyal, an ethicist at Harvard Medical School, we should consider a more fundamental problem: Organ markets treat the human body as a commodity.
Selling your kidney can yield quick cash, but you may feel shame and humiliation for the rest of your life. Eyal points out that sellers may also experience social stigma from their community, a diminished sense of self esteem, and a sense of victimhood. And for society as a whole, organ markets may compromise human dignity, leading to the view that one group of people are sub-human. (See Europe 1939 – 1945 for possible consequences.)
However, if you believe that global organ markets are not morally acceptable, you have a difficult case to argue. Some 200,000 people are waiting for a kidney transplant–and they are dying by the hour. On the other side, kidney donation is not a life-threatening procedure. You can live a full life with just one kidney. And for the absolute poor of the world–those living on less than $1 per day–the sale of a kidney could lift their entire community out of poverty and save yet more lives from preventable disease.
Can the eventual risks of a global organ market outweigh these benefits? Also, might banning the organ market only drive it underground, resulting in even more harm?
–Daphne Ezer & Kelly Dakin
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:51 am
This is such an interesting discussion. First off, I would just like to add a potential correction, “On the other side, kidney donation is not a life-threatening procedure”… let’s keep in mind that surgery is a surgery is a surgery and it still can yield complications… including death. BUT, the point you’re trying to make is an extremely valid one… its little cost to our body to save a life. As I think about this, I wonder if I would ever sell an organ. Since I’m a poor college student, I certainly could justify this! At the same time, I would feel guilty because I am accepting payment. I should just give a kidney away to those in need… that’s what Peter Singer would say, right?
Coercion is a HUGE question in terms of selling organs. The case of the 200 or so kidneys that were donated to U Mass wouldn’t be a joke… only it could be someone who is trying to sell the kidneys – of people who maybe didn’t give them away by choice.
All-in-all, this is a slippery slope, of which will always have people fighting for one side or the other.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:07 am
There are two separate issues here, right? You talk about the utilitarian arguments for and against organ markets, as well as Eyal’s moral argument against, but what about a moral argument for organ markets?
For example, what about individual liberty? Eyal is correct to point out that people might find their dignity more valuable than any possible monetary benefit from selling their organs, but what about people who don’t feel this way? To justify restricting the freedom of these people to do as they see fit, there needs to be some societal benefit from the restriction. In other words, how do non-selling members of the public benefit from the restriction of people who otherwise would sell organs? I don’t see how they would be affected either way.
Just for argument’s sake, I’m not talking about the utilitarian issues that usually dominate the policy debate–i.e. potential health problems, abuse and exploitation, etc. I’m asking whether as a matter of principle, we should side with “dignity of the body” or with “freedom to do what you want” with your body. I find the case for enforcing dignity at the cost of freedom somewhat shaky.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:49 am
[...] to do with the mixing of modern technology and age-old questions of body and ownership (personal organ sales [...]
April 5th, 2009 at 11:12 am
This is an interesting, complicated, and controversial subject alright.
For a variety of blog posts on organ markets and related matters, check out http://marketdesigner.blogspot.com/search/label/compensation%20for%20donors.
For a more general discussion of “repugnant markets,” you might be interested in my paper “Repugnance as a constraint on markets,” at http://kuznets.fas.harvard.edu/~aroth/papers/Repugnance.pdf