MORALITY OF ORGAN TRADE FOR HUMAN TRANSPLANT 2
Morality of Organ Trade for Human Transplant
The buying and selling of organs for human transplant has increased in the recent past
even as the debate about the morality of the trade rages on. In the US alone, 100,000 people
await a kidney transplant as a new recipient is added to the list every ten minutes while eighteen
others die in the waiting table as benevolent and posthumous donors fail to meet the demand
(Hippen & Cato Institute, 2008). The shortage has led to proliferation of the black market for
organs as bioethicists mull over their moral stance on the issue.
The most popular moral argument against organ trade is that the practice violates human
dignity. Led by Immanuel Kant, the proponents of this argument argue that losing an organ for
material gains is fundamentally wrong as it reduces the dignity and integrity of the human body
(Price, 2000). Moreover, those who sell their organs mostly end up more miserable, hopeless,
and stigmatized in addition to the health complications that may arise.
As valid as the argument for human dignity is, many practitioners and bioethicists are
increasingly finding it not compelling enough especially viewed in the context of organs
shortage and potential benefits to the buyer and the healthcare system. If an organ transplant is
done properly, it does not matter if it is given or sold as the recipient will likely live longer and
thus advance the even higher moral imperative to save lives. For kidney transplants for instance,
the recipient is likely to live 10-20 years more than when subjected to dialysis or given an organ
by a dying person (Hippen & Cato Institute, 2008). For the healthcare system, it is cheaper when
a patient receives an organ than when they are on endless treatment. In the final analysis, it is
morally acceptable to buy and sell organs for human transplant as the moral obligation to
preserve lives is stronger than any other imperative.
