Organ transplant

A question that's been bugging me for a few days now. This issue of organ transplant was highlighted by the cause celebre case of Mr tang wanting to buy a kidney illegally.

So pardon me as I list down some pointers to assist in my analysis of this problem.


YES to legalising kidney sale.

- We own our bodies, thus, we have been endowed by the god-given right to do with our body as we see fit.

- Kidney sales increases the donor pool, thus resulting in more saved lives. The average time a person must wait for a kidney is 9 years. This can be cut down with legal sales.

- If there is a demand, there is a market. Better have it out in the open than to allow such risky procedures to take place in shady regions.

- Exploitation of the poor can be kept in check by laws. (But how? Easier said than done)

- It is a win-win situation. Since no one loses out (yeah, losing a kidney isn't much huh) why not?

and lastly, can anyone out there give me an answer to this very irritating rebuttal. "If prostitution is legalised, and it is the epitome of the act of commodification of the body, why can't something helpful and not as harmful like organ sales be done?"

Try as I might, I just can't seem to differentiate the two. At an empirical level, both are the same. Both treat the body as a good to be exploited for money. So indeed, if prostitution is allowed, why not organ sales? What is that factor which makes the two different? Anyone, if you have an answer, please tell me.



NO

- There can never be a right, standard price for a human organ. A poor Indonesian farmer might think $20 000 is a lot, but a Singaporean might think otherwise.

- Let us not set potentially self-destructive antecedents for the future. If organ sales are allowed, it makes the argument for the non-commodification of the body less impactful. Next, we'll have liver sales, teeth sales, sperm sales etc.

- For all that you might say about regulation, the fact is, only the poor will sell. This is outright discrimination and exploitation. Instead of being helpful to these poor farmers, you rip out their kidneys and say this is a good thing.

- Moral issue of seeing the body as a good.

- Our right over our bodies is not infinite.

- With legal sales, exploitation will increase, not decrease. There will be firms set up specially to harvest poor people for their kidneys. Eg. Look at your maid firms now. (The way we work them, we'd might as well take out their kidneys and let them go).

- As with all government policies, there must be a weightage between the individual and the nation. Look at YES, all its arguments lead to the same point - individualistic benefits. But with NO, we stem exploitation. We stop consumerism of the body. We encourage altruism. We make it more imperative to research for medical technologies.


Hmm, I just have to settle this issue or I'll be bugged down for days. Of course, there are many other pointers which I have yet to write here. I would say NO, but why?


HOTA

"The Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA) allows for the organs (kidney, liver, heart and cornea) of Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents to be donated in the event of death, for the purpose of transplantation only... HOTA was again amended in August 2008 to include Muslim Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who were excluded from HOTA when it was first enacted in 1987. The amendment meant that Muslims who have not opted out of HOTA would receive the same priority as those who are included under HOTA or MTERA should the need for a donor organ arise." taken from www.liveon.sg