In today's society there is no doubt that organ transplants have saved countless lives. However, issues have risen due to organ scarcity. The demand simply exceeds the supply, which has led many to engage in the black market. Throughout this essay I will offer my opinion and two other philosophers beliefs regarding the sale of human organs.
In many countries, thousands of candidates are placed on a transplant list. It's sad to say that many of those candidates will eventually die. It's also sad to say that many of those deaths could have been prevented. The law prohibits the selling of human organs, but that hasn't stopped its thrive in the black-market. People are advocating for the legalization of organs and personally so am I. In my opinion donating an organ and selling an organ go hand in hand. We have the choice of deciding what happens to our bodies after we're dead and gone, so I see no reason why that same rule can't apply while we're alive and well. If someone wants to make a generous financial gain from the sale of an organ and save someone else's life why not let them? It doesn't violate anyone's rights because it's not being forced on anyone. It's just an option
…show more content…
Childress primarily argues against the market, whilst Burrows argues that it is the best utilitarian approach. In Childress's assertion he claims that if we were to legalize the sale of human organs it would commodify the body. Specifically stating that this action would no longer be a "gift" to someone only a "give" or "take" situation. Arguing that this type of exploitation would also become unfair to the poor, as they would try to sell their organs to the rich for financial gain. He states that we shouldn't adopt a new way other than donations without sufficient evidence leading us to believe a market would be effective and