Professor Obioma Iwuanyanwu
May 05, 2014
The commercialization of human organs for transplantation is a possibility and a new approach. However, there are many arguments against the commercialization of human organs and most of them include severe criticism. In order to reach an ethical conclusion, the ethical aspects concerning commercialization of human organs need to be investigated. The fourth-principle approach is a useful method of analyzing ethical issues in transplantation. An issue of distributive justice is clearly the allocation of scarce organs. The issue of commerce in organs can be aligned with the four principles analytic framework. This paper will construct a report in accordance my suggested plan of action and will review the arguments for and against the commercialization of organ transplants.
The Moral Principles
I prefer to use the four principles plus scope approach as a standard basis for moral assessment in biomedical ethics is compatible with a wide variety of moral theories. In accordance to this approach, biomedical moral issues can be analyzed in terms of four basic normal values or principles along with reflection about the scope of application of each of these principles. Justice, the obligation to benefit or beneficence, the obligation not to harm or non-maleficence, self-determination or respect for autonomy for people are the four basic principles. These four principles can be accepted by almost everyone, regardless of culture, politics, religion, philosophy and background. Respect for autonomy of the people is the first principle. Autonomy is essentially self-determination or deliberated self-rule. The main moral characteristic that distinguishes us from other animals is the ability to make thought-out choices for ourselves.
The main concern in medical ethics is that are children adequately autonomous to respect their own decisions. For instance, in the context of transplantation, the main concern is that are children autonomous enough to have their decision respected to donate blood, bone marrow or kidney to their sisters or brothers or to someone else. To make a free decision to donate her or his organ to the loved one or to take the risks involved, a donor is the one who is emotionally very involved with the potential recipient adequately autonomous. However, there is a possibility that the donor is the victim of emotional blackmail and does not really want to give up his or her organ. Almost everything is override by family obligations in some cultures (Schweda & Schicktanz, 2009). The main concern whether the decision to volunteer can be adequately or not autonomous for doctors to accept and respect. There must be adequate safeguards to protect the donors if they do not truly wish to be donors. The obligation not to harm each other and non-maleficence is the second moral principle.
When a corresponding obligation to beneficence in the particular circumstances is not accepted, then this obligation is accepted. For instance, I will acknowledge that I must not go and harm the stranger if I reject an obligation of beneficence that requires me to donate one of my organs to the particular stranger. Some kind of harm is produced by any operation, like, the small risk of complications of surgery involving the tiny risk of dying, risks of infection, the post-operative pain, the inescapable and small risk of a general anesthetic and the cutting itself. The doctors are prohibited of operating on perfectly healthy people to remove one of their organs by the obligation not to harm others. With the objective being to provide a net benefit with as little harm as possible, the beneficence must always be considered along with the principle of non-maleficence. Despite the anticipated risks of the operation, if net medical benefit for the patient is reasonably expected from the operation, then the operation’s attendant