Policy Proposal as a Guest Editorial

This kind of argument is familiar from other notable discourses about prostitution, abortion, and drugs legalization. No matter how the hazardous paid donation is, it need not be any more problematic than the unpaid donation. It is agreeable that the mere truth of payment does not add any problem. So if the paid donation is bad because of its hazardous nature to which donor is subjected, on the same grounds then free donation should also be unlawful. On the contrary, a free donation is commonly depicted as heroic and commendable, is not wrong. When regarding the human organs sale moral permissibility, it is advisable to regard the likely harm level rather than the worst case that would take place within a decently regulated system.

The risk and harm argument against the sale, donation, and trade of human organs seem vulnerable to several objections once the previous argument is borne in mind. For example, the most widely talked about kind of human organ sale, kidney transplant, is not much hazardous if done in good conditions (Rothman et al, 1997). I would support the motion that living organ donation such as kidney transplant is nowadays harmless, hence the majority of the surgeons have actively recommended it. The surgeons could barely do that if they presupposed a string of damaged or dead donors. Whilst they would not recommend others in similar situations to sell a kidney. The sale of human body parts fails to express decent respect for the seller’s individual dignity.

One noteworthy policy proposal that I would suggest is that human organs marketing to involve the following features: The prices must be set at a reasonably generous level, this is aimed at attracting individuals voluntarily into the market; there should be placement of a central public body that plays the role of financing and making all purchases and distributing organs with equity in regard to clinical procedure-direct sales should be banned; the sale, donation, and trade of human organs should be limited to specific geopolitical sections, such as the European Union or state, with only the occupants of the section being allowed to receive and sell organs. The above-discussed features are supposed to rule out exploitative organ trafficking from third world nations, whilst the distribution and ban on direct sales by a central body uphold that the human parts reach not to the people who are most able to afford their prices, but the ones in most need (Smith, 2013).

I would also recommend sufficient health checkups and thorough medical care before donations taking place. A proper and transparent licensing method could show that the agent could be certified to be having financial integrity and fiscally responsible. With the brain death determination, the selected agent by the provider, making use of the phones, fax or email, could instantly advise the alleged buyers of an organ’s condition and availability (Vogel, 1994). Lastly, the party which is lawfully stated by the provider should maintain a public record for examples like a broadcaster’s log that is reachable by the members of the public explaining particularly the person who obtains the organ or organs, the provider’s identification and the amount to be paid.

The whole intention of the process is to maintain transparency in order to eradicate the want for a black market and to increase the level of public awareness. If there exists a public record, immediately after the organ trades start, the mainstream shall undoubtedly report on it regarding the amount that was paid for the transactions and insisting on the amount of money that is received by the heirs. L. & Schoen, K. F. (1997, September). The Bellagio Task Force report on transplantation, bodily integrity, and the international traffic in organs. https://cirt. gcu. edu/jir/documents/2016_v5/16cds0086_jir_vol1_2016_finalpdf Friedlaender, M. M. The right to sell or buy a kidney: are we failing our patients?.  Bodies for sale: Ethics and exploitation in the human body trade.