Organ Trading-Revisited
So it finally happened. As Organ trading in Singapore is illegal, two Indonesian men were convicted of selling organs to a Singaporean man and a debate on organ trading reignited. This is just a tragedy waiting to happen.
In fact, XY and I had a discussion on this issue about the same time last year, see http://dhs4k01.blogspot.com/2007/05/must-blog-bit.html.
My views on organ trading have not changed much over this period. Selfish "public morality" - for lack of better term- is driving desperate people waiting for organs to get one illegally through monetary means. This particular buyer of the organ can only represent the tip of the iceberg as he is stupid enough to have his kidney transplant operation in Singapore. There must be many others who tried to have their operations overseas, going under the knife in "black market" hospitals. According to MOH, over 600 have gone overseas to seek kidney transplants since 1986. I wonder how many of these operations involved some sort of monetary exchange.
Politicians, for fear of "public morality", may rehash the stand that altruism is the only basis for organ transplant. According to MOH, over 536 people are currenly on the waiting list of kidney transplants. Clearly, Altruism is not a sufficient motive to clear the demand for organs. People will wait to die or be forced to buy an organ illegally until "public morality" decides to stop moralizing.
The "double thinking" of the unthinking masses is best illustrated by the fact that those surveyed believe that organ sale is wrong, but is fine with it when their loved ones or themselves are in desperate need of an organ. If this is not selfishness, I don't know what is.
A comparision with usury may be appropriate here. "Public morality" against usury-charging interest for capital was prevalent in medieval Europe. Money-lenders, mainly Jews, were villified and they were best caricatured in Shylock in the Merchant of Venice. However, as more and more non Jews become money-lenders and the inhabitants of the growing economy become increasingly reliant on capital, the taboo against usury slowly disappeared.
I suspect that an ageing population worldwide, with the increase in demand for organ transplants, would eventually shape social norms to be more accepting of organ sale. But until then, one can only wait till "public morality" stops moralizing about organ sale.
2 Comments:
actually, because of that discussion i have written a paper on it and it was published in 'the triple helix' in a handful of schools. link:
http://uchicago.thetriplehelix.org/documents/UCHICAGO_Vol2Issue1.pdf
pp. 40 - 42.
initially my stand is the conventional stand - but after talking it through i have to acknowledge that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.
it is not morally justifiable to let patients wait and die on the waiting list when clearly if there is a policy change patients won't have to die. however, i acknowledge that advocating for an open market of organs is still too contentious morally in societies like america and singapore, and there will always be strong political opposition due to the huge problem of 'perceived exploitation of the poor'. thus i am suggesting an alternative middle ground when a non-profit regulatory body (need not be the government) manages the donation scheme and provides 'compensation' instead of a 'price'. it has been working for more than 10 years in iran - they do not have a waiting list for kidneys at all.
one thing good about eliminating the list is - doctors do not need to decide who should receive the next kidney and who should not. i hate this process to the core. why should doctors be given the power to decide which patient is more worth living? and the current policy is precisely giving doctors this power because it causes the waiting list to stay.
i believe that there are more than 600 who actually went overseas to have their transplant operation done. but what about those who can't even afford financially to take that risk and do the same?
in this light, current policies are 1) putting those who can afford in unnecessary risk when they can't get an organ 2) depriving those who cannot afford to take that risk their chance to survive 3) taking away the lives of those who are deemed by doctors to be less worth living.
and i believe you should have heard about the relatives of patients refusing to let the medical team remove the required organs even though the patient has not opted out or even have opted in. we can't even blame them - because they are in grief. no one can be altruistic when you are in grief.
and well there is still the issue of religious beliefs.
i don't think anyone will have the guts to do anything though. when a society cannot even resolve a problem like whether or not sex between two males should be decriminalised (i didn't say that it is something morally upright), it will not be able to resolve the organ problem. we will just continue to see people dying and we won't be able to do anything about it.
p.s. that is why i don't like republicans. i find them very hypocritical...
From the political perspective, it is very difficult to implement legalized organ trading. I agree with yout that something like the model in iran can be tried in Singapore, and words like "compensation," "token of appreciation, "gratitude money," and other synonymns for "price" should be used to reduce opposition to the plan.
I think the democrats are just as hypocritical as the republicans. it is the fault of the masses for not being discerning and blindly follow public morality.
Post a Comment
<< Home