INTRODUCTION For this week, we examined Leslie Sharp’s Bodies, Commodities, & Biotechnologies and Nancy Scheper-Hughes’ The Tyranny of the Gift: Sacrificial Violence in Living Donor Transplants. While they can agree on certain facts, the two women take on different views of what it means to be a donor and what the consequences are for both the donor and the receiver. Sharp examines the emotional side of the donation, stating that there is a “selflessness embedded” (Sharp 2007: 3) in the act itself while Scheper-Hughes’ suggests it is a violent act where “pure altruism does not exist” (Scheper-Hughes 2007: 508). Their essays pose a multitude of questions: Does altruism exist? Should donations be anonymous? Where does ownership lie? How does
…show more content…
However, while Scheper-Hughes acknowledges this, her piece primarily focuses on those that are potentially sacrificing their bodies to keep another (mostly within their family) alive. Scheper-Hughes suggests that altruism does not exist because people are always seeking to benefit from their actions (Scheper-Hughes 2007). On the other hand, both Sharp and Scheper would agree that anonymity is the best option to propel true altruism. Scheper’s piece brings into question whether or not family members should be responsible for saving one another through organ transplants. She proves that this is not a natural obligation, but rather a moral obligation that we ourselves have created. Be that as it may, it is likely that the relationship between the two family members will turn into a “master-slave dialectic” (508) when the receiver places a claim on the donor for the …show more content…
There are many arguments to be had when it comes to the psychology behind organ transplants. Regardless, the bottom line is this: It is a choice. Humans will do what they do for their own reasons and there is no reason for us to try and stop them. If someone wants to donate their kidney, let them. If they wish to receive one, let them. If they believe that there is a moral obligation they hold to their family members, let them. Finally, if they wish to believe that there is some sort of spiritual connection between the donor and the recipient, let them! It may seem frivolous in retrospect, but there is a decision to be made on both ends of the agreement. There is nothing inhumane about giving one’s life to save another’s. In fact, there is nothing more
However, while Scheper-Hughes acknowledges this, her piece primarily focuses on those that are potentially sacrificing their bodies to keep another (mostly within their family) alive. Scheper-Hughes suggests that altruism does not exist because people are always seeking to benefit from their actions (Scheper-Hughes 2007). On the other hand, both Sharp and Scheper would agree that anonymity is the best option to propel true altruism. Scheper’s piece brings into question whether or not family members should be responsible for saving one another through organ transplants. She proves that this is not a natural obligation, but rather a moral obligation that we ourselves have created. Be that as it may, it is likely that the relationship between the two family members will turn into a “master-slave dialectic” (508) when the receiver places a claim on the donor for the …show more content…
There are many arguments to be had when it comes to the psychology behind organ transplants. Regardless, the bottom line is this: It is a choice. Humans will do what they do for their own reasons and there is no reason for us to try and stop them. If someone wants to donate their kidney, let them. If they wish to receive one, let them. If they believe that there is a moral obligation they hold to their family members, let them. Finally, if they wish to believe that there is some sort of spiritual connection between the donor and the recipient, let them! It may seem frivolous in retrospect, but there is a decision to be made on both ends of the agreement. There is nothing inhumane about giving one’s life to save another’s. In fact, there is nothing more