Every ten minutes, someone is placed on a waiting list for an organ transplant, and every year the number of patients on this waiting listing continues to grow exponentially while the number of available organ transplants does not grow so quickly (organdonor.gov). This organ shortage represents a huge issue in the medical community, and numerous issues arise from the ethical principles involved with organ donation. The ethical dilemma in the case of Ruth Sparrow deals with whether it is ethical or unethical to allow people to sell their organs. This issue creates another dilemma about whether it is ethical or not to buy these organs. Each issue will be addressed separately as two different problems with two distinct answers. Due to the principles of autonomy and beneficence, it is morally ethical to allow Ruth and other people in different situations to sell their organs despite that it would go against the principle of nonmaleficence. …show more content…
Even though this violates the potential buyer's autonomous choice to purchase the organ. Shown by the fact that Ruth was looking to sell her organ for thirty thousand dollars, the availability of organs to buy comes with an expensive price tag. Being able to purchase organs would cause an imbalance in the distribution of transplants to people in different income levels. People who cannot afford to buy organs would most likely never get one, and rich people could theoretically stockpile them. Even though people with higher income have the ability and right to make the autonomous choice to buy such organs, the unequal organ imbalance is entirely unfair and unacceptable. This would also open up a market for people to buy organs and auction them at extreme prices. Radcliffe- all provide the intricate idea that the organ market would produce a danger to some women and children would could be forced or "coerced into becoming