Organ Sales Will Save Lives by Joanna Mackay In the essay Organ sales will save lives by Joana Mackay, Mackay states how the legalization of selling human organs will help to save thousands of lives. Mackay is based on the fact that this will benefit not only the person receiving the organ, but also would help receive money for it. People are waiting for an organ transplant that could save their lives, but due to “laws” that leave out the option of donating organs, these people are usually condemned to death as they wait on a list of donors or a death person to extract the organ they need. Governments “Should not ban the sale of human organs, they should regulate it”(92). She explains how in the third world countries they are illegal organs, trades and people are willing to sell an organ for proximity of $1000.
One of the most controversial issues we have today. The scarcity of organ donations in America is the main reason there is a sudden diversion of possible source of organs. Beginning with donations of organs from cadaver to living donors, different strategies sprung just to reduce the said shortage; as a result of this quest, sale and paid organs is one of the approaches that gathered too much attention from the public. The question remains, should we get compensated for a good deed, or does that contradict the whole reasoning. Yet, the doctors get paid by the families of those who need the organs, is this wrong too.
From avoiding the cost needed for dialysis each year, the insurers could fund some of that money into providing support for the donor. On the opposing side, the ethical implications for having to pay someone for an organ are acceptable as long as regulations prevent exploitative use. Even with such regulations, organ trafficking could be used so the rich could benefit. It also incentivizes the poor to donate their organs to ease financial
Being an organ donor may not seem like much when you check yes on your driver’s license form, but in reality it means a lot. It means when you die you are allowing them to take your organ out of your body and giving them to someone else who can benefit from them. You can save several lives being an organ donor. Why would you not want to be one? There are several debates people give to not wanting to donate their organs.
Singers plan would help many of the impoverished overseas but it is also unrealistic and demands too much from american Citizens. The Pros of singers solution is that it would not only decrease the number of poverty stricken people but would also make people realize how unmoral their priorities are. In Singers essay he compares a woman who is selling a child to the organ farm and a man upgrading his perfectly functional T.V “In the end, what is the ethical distinction between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already has a T.V and upgrades to a better one-knowing that the money could be donated to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need?” Here he is saying that buying a luxury is letting a child die overseas. Americans do put too much of a significance on unneeded items. If America regulated Singers proposal, it would positively effect peoples morals and the values they place on a life.
America, being under the United Nations standard for a country's gross donation would rise in the ranks to being a charitable country that donates the most which would spread American leadership qualities towards other nations. This formula to solving world poverty benefits each individual by raising morals, benefits the nation by raising its standards among others around the globe, and benefits the nation by getting rid of world poverty. On the other hand, Singer's Solution also comes with a downside which is that getting everyone in America to donate a great portion of their income will prove a difficult task. Singer's studies show that on average an American who makes fifty thousand dollars a year only spends thirty thousand on necessities, so according to his solution the
Would this be ethical? Could something that is usually portrayed as a selfless act, be turned into something that is practiced to pay the bills or make ends meet? People argue that the thought of selling body parts is immoral. Yet, others argue that people sell their blood, semen, and eggs every day, making it no different from organ selling. If money or another incentive were offered, the number of donors would most likely increase.
This could result in crimes where by people may be killed for their organs or sometimes force to sell organs to pay their bills. If there was a regulated market it would ease the unnecessary and wasteful loss of lives caused by the global shortage of donor organs, in many cases there would be no need for the long term use of dialysis as relatives of a person suffering from kidney failure would be able to purchase for them the matching kidneys they need to survive. The down side to a regulated market is the idea of money been exchange for people’s organs. People who donate their organs would have normally done it from the kindness of their heart, while people who would be selling their organs may do it out of desperation with the incomplete details on the level of risk. Also because it involves money only the rich would benefit, as the poor in most cases would not be able to afford to pay for organs, or the rich may queue jump which could form a two tier
While reading many articles I found that some people think organ sales should to allowed to boost the supply of organs to solve the national shortage, they say it would end the existing black market trade in organs and will make it safer for people to donate. Donors will be paid like everyone else; hospitals, doctors, nurses and transplant coordinators involved in all aspects of the transplant. As well I found that most people think it should be our decision, it is our organs and is our property to sell As we wish. On other hand I found some people who disagree with the concept, they say that Etach 2 Encouraging people to sell parts of their bodies is immoral and would almost certainly Will lead to exploitation of the poor and potential donors would be more Likely to conceal illnesses that might rule them out. It also would Undermine the existing altruistic donor program.
Professional athletes make millions of dollars every year and it isn’t fair for those out on the streets that don’t make money close to a pro athlete. If all athletes would pay an amount of taxes for social needs it would not only help people such as the homeless but also it would improve society and the way it is looked at. For example, take downtown Hastings in Vancouver, there is a tremendous amount of homeless people all crowded in this one area making it look horrible and unsafe for people. If pro athletes distribute a small amount of taxes for social needs, there wouldn’t this type of problem. The money taxed would be used to pay for homes where the homeless could stay and live, rather than have them on the streets.