ENG-106 Causes and Effects of Commercialization of Human Organ Donation Essay
ENG-106 Causes and Effects of Commercialization of Human Organ Donation Essay
ENG-106 Causes and Effects of Commercialization of Human Organ Donation Essay
Causes and Effects of Commercialization of Human Organ Donation
The commercialization of human organ donation has gained significant attention over recent years. This phenomenon entails selling, trading or donating organs for financial gain, raising serious ethical, legal and societal considerations(antoaneta.seitz, 2018). This essay will investigate the causes and effects of this trend, providing an in-depth examination of its underlying components and potential ramifications. Commercializing human organ donation driven by organ shortages, global socioeconomic disparities and inadequate legal frameworks has far-reaching ramifications on ethical considerations, health risks and socioeconomic dynamics. By understanding the complexity of organ donation issues and exploring various hypotheses, it becomes evident that addressing root causes and prioritizing ethical principles are integral to creating sustainable solutions that protect human dignity, increase equitable access to organs and reduce risks associated with commercialized organ donation.
ORDER A CUSTOM PAPER NOW
Causes of Commercialization of Human Organ Donation
Organ Shortage and Increased Demand
A major driver behind commercialized organ donation is the persistent shortage of available organs for transplantation and their rising demand, creating a compelling reason to do so. As global population growth has steadily increased, so has its aging demographic. As people live longer due to medical advances and longer lifespans, organ transplantation becomes increasingly necessary as age-related ailments, chronic diseases and organ failure become more widespread, further driving demand (Albertsen, 2022). Second, advancements in medical technology have substantially enhanced organ transplant success rates. Transplant procedures have become more sophisticated, leading to higher survival rates and enhanced post-transplant results leading more individuals to be considered eligible for organ donation, further exacerbating the demand-supply gap. There remains an insufficient supply of organs from deceased donors despite efforts to promote organ donation, such as public awareness campaigns and improved deceased donor identification. Waiting lists continue to expand, leading to greater desperation among those needing transplantation.
Global socioeconomic disparities
Commercializing human organ donation is inextricably tied to socioeconomic inequities worldwide, and several factors play into this equation, perpetuating its commercialization trend.
Financial incentives from organ trading or sale are often a solution to combat poverty and economic inequality. Individuals in impoverished regions may view organ donation as a means to improve their finances or support their families; economic desperation can force vulnerable populations into engaging in the organ trade as a survival strategy (ACAMS today, 2018). Disparities in healthcare accessibility and affordability also play a part in commercializing organ donation. When access to health services is limited or inaccessible, people may resort to illicit means to obtain organs they desperately require – further perpetuating organ commercialization cycles. Organ commodification magnifies the marginalization of marginalized communities. People from low socioeconomic positions are particularly affected by organ donation commercialization (Steering Committee of the Istanbul Summit., 2018). Unscrupulous individuals or organizations exploit their vulnerability, often coercing them into selling their organs for financial gain. Unequal power dynamics created by socioeconomic disparities exacerbate this cycle of abuse.
Inadequate Legal Frameworks and Regulation
The lack of sufficient legal frameworks and effective regulation is one of the primary contributors to the commercialization of human organ donation, with various challenges within this arena contributing to its persistence. First and foremost, international legislation regarding organ trade and transplantation is lacking. Without a universal legal framework, there can be discrepancies and inconsistencies across nations, making it hard to effectively address this global problem (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2018). Moreover, the lack of harmonized regulations creates loopholes that facilitate the commercialization of organs. Secondly, legal frameworks surrounding organ donation and transplantation vary significantly within individual countries, creating an environment where organ commercialization can flourish. Weak or vague legislation fails to deter illegal activities while protecting donor and recipient rights, thus perpetuating commercialization trends.
Last but not least is inadequate monitoring and enforcement of existing regulations. Unfortunately, limited resources, corruption, and limited oversight often contribute to ineffectively combatting commercialized organ donation practices. Furthermore, poor regulation enforcement perpetuates an underground market that further endangers the lives and well-being of those involved in organ transactions.
Effects of Commercial Organ Donation
One significant effect is the development of ethical and moral concerns. Commoditization of organs as marketable commodities compromises its inherent dignity and sanctity. Such an approach reduces organs to mere objects of trade, undermining ethics that promote respect for life and dignity (Ralph et al., 2016). Additionally, the commercialization of organ donation often exploits vulnerable individuals living in poverty or marginalized communities disproportionately. Financial incentives associated with organ sale/trade may lead to individuals making risky choices that exacerbate precarious circumstances and deepen existing social inequalities further, further perpetuating a cycle of vulnerability. Another ethical concern involves the erosion of altruism in organ donation (Krishnan, 2018). While traditionally driven by acts of selflessness and compassion, commercialization trends shift the emphasis away from altruism by replacing voluntary acts of donation with monetary transactions that compromise values such as compassion, solidarity and the goodwill associated with organ donation.
Commercialization of human organ donation presents significant health and safety risks. Illegal organ trafficking thrives within a commercialized organ market, leading to unethical practices such as organ trafficking or trade for illegal organ transplantation. Organs obtained through illicit means may not undergo screening and testing before transplant, increasing infection or disease risks for transplant recipients. Inadequate oversight and quality control measures add further complications that compound these risks.
Socioeconomic impacts accompany the commercialization trend as well. Commodifying organs reinforces existing socioeconomic disparities. Access to organs becomes contingent upon one’s financial resources, further exacerbating inequality in healthcare delivery. Marginalized populations and individuals living in low-income countries are prone to exploitation due to accepting financial inducements for organ donations. Further, commercialized organ donation contributes to an expanding black market and criminal networks connected to organ trafficking. Such underground networks profit off organ demand without regard for legal or ethical boundaries, perpetuating organ commercialization cycles while jeopardizing donor safety and well-being. Additionally, an emphasis on commercial transactions for organ donation diverts resources away from public health policies and systemic solutions. Instead of prioritizing increasing deceased organ donation rates, supporting living donor programs, or creating effective allocation systems, efforts may focus solely on individual transactions instead of addressing organ shortages with sustainable healthcare solutions.
Rebuttal and Counter-Arguments
When exploring the causes and effects of human organ commercialization, it is crucial to address alternative hypotheses and counter viewpoints. We can strengthen our argument by investigating and refuting them while showing their limitations as simplistic solutions. One alternative proposal suggests legalizing organ trade would address the ongoing organ shortage. Proponents argue that commercial transactions will increase supply, meeting demand more effectively. Unfortunately, this view ignores several key considerations. Legalizing organ trade does not address the root causes of organ shortage and may exacerbate existing inequalities (Martin et al., 2019). Legalization could create a system that perpetuates disparities in access, favoring those who can afford organ transplantation at all costs and potentially commodifying human bodies through transactional transplantation practices rather than compassionate altruism. Moreover, legalization fails to address socioeconomic factors contributing to the organ shortage, such as poverty, inadequate healthcare systems or limited infrastructure for deceased organ donation. Instead, it should focus on these root causes rather than resorting to market-based solutions, which might further exacerbate existing inequalities.
Another argument is that strict regulations will significantly decrease organ trafficking. Advocates of this argument would argue that stricter legal frameworks and increased law enforcement would deter illegal activities and dismantle criminal networks more quickly. However, this approach fails to fully grasp the complexity of the situation. Strict regulations alone cannot address socioeconomic disparities and global inequalities effectively. While regulations are essential, they must also be supplemented by comprehensive approaches that target the factors contributing to organ trafficking (Martin et al., 2019). Simply increasing law enforcement efforts will not stop commercialization. We need a multifaceted solution approach, including poverty alleviation programs, improving healthcare access initiatives and raising awareness about ethical organ donation practices to create a more sustainable system that’s fair for donors and donors alike.
Others might suggest that financial compensation would encourage more individuals to donate organs, increasing the supply. Proponents claim this strategy would alleviate the financial strain while encouraging greater participation – although such thinking ignores key ethical considerations. Donor compensation could exploit vulnerable populations and breach ethical principles. Offering financial incentives to potential donors risks exploiting economically disadvantaged individuals who may feel pressured into selling their organs due to financial desperation. This approach raises ethical concerns over potential organ commodification or coercion/exploitation scenarios (Ralph et al., 2016). Instead, we must prioritize ethical principles such as informed consent, voluntarism, and protecting the well-being of donors rather than only using financial incentives in this endeavor.
Examining and disproving these alternative hypotheses allows us to recognize the limitations of simplistic solutions and gain greater insight into the complexities surrounding commercialized human organ donation. Adopting an inclusive approach which addresses root causes, promotes ethical practices, and ensures equitable organ access is crucial – any solution which perpetuates or worsens existing disparities should be avoided.
Conclusion
The commercialization of human organ donation is an intricate and multidimensional issue with far-reaching ramifications. By exploring its causes and effects in this essay, it becomes evident that organ donation commercialization is driven by factors like organ shortages, global socioeconomic disparities and inadequate legal frameworks. These causes perpetuate cycles of exploitation, ethical concerns, health risks and socioeconomic disparity that continue to compound into an endless loop. Alternative hypotheses and viewpoints suggest solutions such as legalizing organ trade, enacting stringent regulations or providing donor compensation. However, it is crucial to recognize their limitations and potential adverse consequences. Legalizing organ trade could worsen disparities by commercializing human bodies while stringent regulations alone cannot address socioeconomic factors; donor compensation raises ethical concerns as it risks exploiting vulnerable populations. Effective strategies must be employed to address the commercialization of human organ donation. Such strategies should target root causes of organ shortage, such as deceased donation, healthcare access improvement and socioeconomic disparity reduction. Furthermore, legal frameworks, international cooperation agreements and enforcement of regulations must all be strengthened to deter illicit activities; furthermore, emphasizing ethical principles such as informed consent, voluntarism, and donor rights protection must also be prioritized.
References
ACAMS today. (2018, June 26). Organ Trafficking: The Unseen Form of Human Trafficking – ACAMS Today. Acamstoday.org. https://www.acamstoday.org/organ-trafficking-the-unseen-form-of-human-trafficking/
antoaneta.seitz. (2018). Organ Trafficking. Unodc.org. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/organized-crime/intro/emerging-crimes/organ-trafficking.html
Krishnan, M. (2018, April 24). Legalizing Trafficking: Iran’s Unjust Organ Market and Why Legal Selling of Organs Should Not be The Resolve. Berkeley.edu. https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2018/05/03/legalizing-trafficking-irans-unjust-organ-market-and-why-legal-selling-of-organs-should-not-be-the-resolve/
Martin, D. E., Van Assche, K., Domínguez-Gil, B., López-Fraga, M., García Gallont, R., Muller, E., & Capron, A. M. (2019). Strengthening Global Efforts to Combat Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism. Transplantation Direct, 5(3), e433. https://doi.org/10.1097/txd.0000000000000872
Ralph, A. F., Alyami, A., Allen, R. D. M., Howard, K., Craig, J. C., Chadban, S. J., Irving, M., & Tong, A. (2016). Attitudes and beliefs about deceased organ donation in the Arabic-speaking community in Australia: a focus group study. BMJ Open, 6(1), e010138. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010138
Steering Committee of the Istanbul Summit. (2018). THE DECLARATION OF ISTANBUL ON ORGAN TRAFFICKING AND TRANSPLANT TOURISM (2018 Edition) Preamble. http://www.declarationofistanbul.org/images/Policy_Documents/2018_Ed_Do/2018_Edition_of_the_Declaration_of_Istanbul_Final.pdf
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2018). 2018 GLOBAL REPORT ON TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/glotip/2018/GLOTiP_2018_BOOK_web_small.pdf
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
Refer to the “Cause/Effect Essay Assignment” resource for instructions on completing this assignment.
Remember that you can focus on causes or effects in this paper. You do not have to do both.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
General Education Program Information
This assignment assesses the following general education competencies:
Critical Thinking
GED2C1: Construct logical, cohesive, and persuasive arguments.
GED2C2: Locate, verify, evaluate, and correctly cite print and electronic resources.
GED2C3: Exhibit proficiency in Standard American English for academic purposes.
GED2C4: Demonstrate knowledge of the power and ethical ramifications of language choice and communication style.
Attachments
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
ENG-106 Rubric: Cause and Effect Argument
| Criteria | % Value | 1: Unsatisfactory | 2: Less Than Satisfactory | 3: Satisfactory | 4: Good | 5: Excellent | ||
| % Scaling | 0% | 65% | 75% | 85% | 100% | |||
| Content & Ideas – 40% | ||||||||
| Cause and Effect Content and Ideas Should:
Include an effective title. Present a thesis that centers specifically on a problem of cause and effect. Use cause and effect chains and inductive reasoning to support the cause and effect argument established in the thesis. Cite evidence that supports the cause and effect chains and inductive reasoning. |
40% | Does not have title, and has missing or indiscernible thesis statement and minimal evidence to support main ideas. Argument includes elements of cause/effect, but the argument does not center on causes or consequences. The student does not use strategies that support cause and effect arguments. | Title may not suggest subject and does not spark interest. Thesis statement and/or the controlling idea are not clearly stated. Argument includes elements of cause/effect, but the argument does not center on causes or consequences and/or the writer does not use strategies that support cause and effect arguments very well. Ideas are underdeveloped and clichéd. They do not support the thesis. Evidence from outside sources can be irrelevant. | Title suggests subject but does not spark interest. Thesis statement identifies the main point the author is trying to make. Most of content relates to thesis statement, but lacks sufficient support through appropriate strategies. Argument may not center specifically on cause/effect or use strategies that support cause and effect arguments effectively. Cited evidence sometimes does not justify ideas. | Title suggests subject but does not necessarily spark interest. Thesis statement clearly identifies the main point the author is trying to make. Argument centers specifically on cause/effect and uses strategies that support cause and effect arguments (cause and effect chains and inductive reasoning). Most of the content supports thesis, and cited evidence usually justifies ideas. | Title suggests subject and sparks interest. With a clear, controlling idea, thesis statement effectively identifies the main point the student is trying to make. Content supports thesis well. Argument centers specifically on cause/effect and effectively uses strategies that support cause and effect arguments (cause and effect chains and inductive reasoning). Specific, cited evidence justifies ideas and enriches the essay. | ||
| Organization – 12% | ||||||||
| Organization
|
12% | No apparent organization present. Ineffective introduction does not invite readers or explain the subject. The reader cannot find the thesis statement. Underdeveloped paragraphs lack focus and topic sentences. No conclusion present. | No apparent organization present. Introduction explains subject, but does not engage readers. Thesis is difficult to find. Underdeveloped paragraphs lack focus and topic sentences. Weak conclusion offered. | Organization is clear, but with minor errors. Introduction explains subject, but does not adequately engage readers. Thesis may be misplaced. Paragraphs are not developed around topic sentences, and may not always advance essay’s ideas. Conclusion summarizes but does not conclude. | Organization aids readers in understanding content. Introduction explains subject, but may not engage readers. Thesis statement is placed appropriately, according to the genre of the writing set forth in the assignment description in the syllabus. Well-ordered paragraphs are developed around topic sentences, and advance essay’s ideas. Conclusion may be more of a summary. | Logically organized to lead readers to understanding content. Introduction explains subject and engages readers. Thesis statement is placed appropriately, according to the genre set forth in the assignment description in the syllabus. Well-ordered paragraphs are developed around topic sentences, and advance essay’s ideas. Conclusion provides strong, satisfying ending, not a mere summary of the essay. | ||
| Format – 16% | ||||||||
| Paper Format
|
16% | Layout: Essay lacks more than THREE of the following: double-spaced, 12 pt, Times New Roman font, 1inch margins, heading (with name, course, date, and instructor), assignment title, and page numbers using appropriate header function. Not all information, paraphrases, quotations, and borrowed ideas are cited on the page they appear; little or no in-text citations and/or entries on reference page used; major documentation oversights noted; major format errors and omissions noted; inappropriate number of required sources used. | Layout: Essay lacks THREE of the following: double-spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman font, 1inch margins, heading (with name, course, date, and instructor), assignment title, and page numbers using appropriate header function. Not all information, paraphrases, quotations, and borrowed ideas are cited on the page they appear; missing more than one citation and/or reference entry; significant documentation oversights noted; significant format errors or omissions noted; inappropriate number of required sources used. | Layout: Essay lacks TWO of the following: double-spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman font, 1inch margins, heading (with name, course, date, and instructor), assignment title, and page numbers using appropriate header function. Not all information, paraphrases, quotations, and borrowed ideas are cited on the page they appear; missing one in-text citation and/or reference entry; minor documentation oversights noted; minor formatting errors or omissions noted; appropriate number of required sources are used. | Essay lacks ONE of the following: double-spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman font, 1inch margins, heading (with name, course, date, and instructor), assignment title, and page numbers using appropriate header function. All information, paraphrases, quotations, and borrowed ideas are cited on the page that they appear and are listed on the references page (APA format); some minor errors or omissions in format noted; appropriate number of required sources is used. | Layout: Essay is double-spaced with 12 pt. Times New Roman font, 1inch margins, heading (with name, course, date, and instructor), assignment title, and page numbers using appropriate header function. All information, paraphrases, quotations, and borrowed ideas are cited in parenthetical APA format; all sources are listed on the references page (APA format); all citations and reference entries are complete and in alphabetical order; appropriate number of required sources is used. | ||
| Language & Style – 16% | ||||||||
| Language & Style
|
16% | Voice & tone are inappropriate and ineffective in creating appropriate mood. Inappropriate word choice used. Sentence structure includes ungrammatical structures and no variety. Writing is wordy. | Voice & tone are inappropriate and ineffective in creating appropriate mood. Word choice fails in use of appropriate, precise language and strong verbs. Includes too many to be verbs. No attempt to vary sentence structure noted. Writing is wordy. | Voice & tone usually do not characterize ideas appropriately or effectively create appropriate mood. Word choice includes nonstandard outdated usage, too many to be verbs, is not precise, and is occasionally incorrect. Some slang or jargon exists in the paper. Inadequate variety in sentence structure noted. Writing is wordy. | Voice & tone usually characterize ideas effectively create appropriate mood. Word choice usually includes current standard usage, active verbs, concrete nouns, and precise words. Some slang or jargon exists in the paper. Some variety of sentence structures strengthens the ideas, creates vitality, and avoids choppiness in the writing. Writing is mostly concisely written. | Voice & tone characterize ideas and effectively create appropriate mood. Word choice includes current standard usage, active verbs, concrete nouns, and precise words. Sentence structures strengthen the ideas, create vitality, and avoid choppiness in the writing. Writing is concise. | ||
| Grammar & Mechanics – 16% | ||||||||
| Grammar & Mechanics | 16% | Demonstrates no control of grammar, spelling, & punctuation conventions.
Many errors, such as: Apostrophe use Capitalization Commas misplaced or missing Parallelism Faulty point of view shifts Pronoun agreement Quotation errors Semicolons misused Run-ons & fragments Spelling errors Subject-verb agreement Tense shifts |
Demonstrates minimal control of grammar, spelling, & punctuation conventions. Several errors, such as:
Apostrophe use Capitalization Commas misplaced or missing Parallelism Faulty point of view shifts Pronoun agreement Quotation errors Semicolons misused Run-ons & fragments Spelling errors Subject-verb agreement Tense shifts |
Demonstrates reasonable control of grammar, spelling, & punctuation conventions.
Some errors, such as: Apostrophe use Capitalization Commas misplaced or missing Parallelism Faulty point of view shifts Pronoun agreement Quotation errors Semicolons misused Run-ons & fragments Spelling errors Subject-verb agreement Tense shifts
|
Demonstrates high control of grammar, spelling, & punctuation conventions. Few errors, such as:
Apostrophe use Capitalization Commas misplaced or missing Parallelism Faulty point of view shifts Pronoun agreement Quotation errors Semicolons misused Run-ons & fragments Spelling errors Subject-verb agreement Tense shifts |
Demonstrates outstanding control of grammar, spelling, & punctuation conventions.
No errors, such as: Apostrophe use Capitalization Commas misplaced or missing Parallelism Faulty point of view shifts Pronoun agreement Quotation errors Semicolons misused Run-ons & fragments Spelling errors Subject-verb agreement Tense shifts |
||
