| The worlds poor should not be prohibited from selling their organs. Doing so results in the deaths of patient in need of transplant and continued poverty for people who are willing to give. Although opponents of a legal organ trade argue that buying organs from the poor is simply exploitation, exchanging organs for money is not much different than working for a paycheck. Ultimately, the decision to sell body parts should be left up to each individual. Legalizing the organ trade can not only save the lives of dying patients, it can also improve the standard of living of thousands of others.
The receiving person would get a new lease on life, getting to live longer thanks to the original owner of the organ. There would also, most likely, not be a shortage of organs for people who desperately needed them. Second, the bad part of paying for organs is that you are selling parts of the human body. This violates a 1984 federal law that declares organs a national resource and not subjected to compensation. Pennsylvania only plans to donate $300 to the funeral home to help pay for the costs of funerals.
Some of the Pros of Universal Health Care is if you was to lose your job, the health coverage would go with it. To me, that does not seem fair at all, but that is just the law. Another pros would be if we had Universal health care if you ended up losing your job you would not get service. Which to me is not right, but I guess that is the thing about having it universal. Some of the cons of it would be if the United States went universal we would lose out on a lot of companies.
My theory also is that eventually people will start bidding on artificial organs and the richer people will have say over a family that doesn't have a lot of money. If doctors wanted to replace original organs with artificial ones, it would take a lot of perfecting and obligating a clean bill of health for the patient. Who, if anyone, should be a prime candidate for these types of artificial/synthetic replacements? Do you feel that anyone should have access to them? Even a life-long smoker or alcoholic who knowingly subjected themselves to harmful substances?
A person may decide to dispose of his or her body by allowing it to be used to replace parts needed by the sick and suffering. This is seen as useful, morally irreproachable and even noble to most people “…we consider it noble to donate organs freely. It is better to give them away than receive compensation for them” (Mullin, D. 2013). In addition, such donation would not cause harm to the person, as they are already deceased and have (prior to death) stated the wish to have the organs harvested to help others. “… Most of us acknowledge the difference between giving something freely and exchanging it for monetary gain”, as said by Daniel Mullin (2013) philosopher, recent PhD, and a former adjunct professor.
The purpose is to argue that potential organ donors should be rewarded for their generosity .In addition, Satel argues the current system of altruistic donation is yet noble, it is not the most motivating course for organ donation out of all the alternatives to save people’s lives. The author gives examples including her own organ recipient experience to illustrate how the current system can be altered and improved otherwise the only people who would volunteer to donate organs would be ones that no longer needed them, the deceased. Satel pinpoints the short comings with the current system and offers rebuttals to altruism supporters. Compensation is given for blood plasma donated at clinic. “Today we routinely assign valuation to the body.
It doesn’t matter how much damage it could cause, you are intentionally harming people. This would make it wrong all the time, because you know the products that you are selling are going to harm someone. With the second definition this becomes a little blurry. In a free market you should be able to sell your products at whatever price you want to. But it becomes wrong when you are selling your products at such a low price that you put all other companies out of business.
To increase the supply of deceased donors is quite difficult; donors have to die under the right circumstances. Still if we harvested all of the eligible cadavers, the gap would still not get filled. However things like laws and cultural beliefs discourage healthy people from donating their organs. Paying more for any scarce commodity is one way to increase the surplus.
However, the reality is that the result of some hate crimes does affect the victims in a monetary way. Of the 7,164 reported hate crimes 41.8 percent were against property (fbi.gov, 2013). Acts carried out were cross burnings, defacement of property, and destruction of property that have cost the victims a great deal of money to repair. There are cases when the damage or intimidation has caused the victims to relocate or purchase fire arms to protect themselves (Barnes & Ephross, 1994), which is another expense directly contributed to the crime. Not only does the person(s) under attack financially suffer, but the city and community loose too.
This donation of Johnson & Johnson had a negative impact to the organization because they donate money to an organization that was responsible for abortion and abortion referral. The donation had two kinds of impacts to the organization, one with their shareholder and one with their stakeholders. The main problem with the stakeholders was that it’s mainly a customer product company. As a result the customers could easily boycott the organization and that would have a direct impact to the organization’s profits, which could harm the revenues of the shareholders. Also the donation of Johnson & Johnson to Planned Parenthood, influence some other possible investors of the organization.