Introduction
The need of organ donors only rise higher and higher. In “It Is Morally Acceptable to Buy and Sell Organs for Human Translation”, Mark Cherry offers a solution to this. He provides claims that defend the ethics of human organ trade.
Analyzing Cherry’s arguments, I will explain how our organs are not commodities, they cannot be part of a regulated market, and we do not have the authority to put a price on them. Not only would it undervalue human life, but it has many negative consequences on society as well.
Summary
Mark Cherry provides several arguments that support the morality of buying and selling human organs for transplantation.
Rescue teams, paramedics, firefighters, and many others risk their life to help others. This …show more content…
As previously mentioned, organs are not commodities, and hospitals are not places for buying and selling products. The problem that Cherry states with this is that medical services do come at a cost (52). Healthcare professionals require payment for their work. These very things make medicine a marketplace. What Cherry offers is for human organs to be part of this market. Just as patients source for different medical services, they should be able to buy and sell organs as well. This market would be carefully regulated, with established minimum and maximum …show more content…
This reasoning is false because individuals do not have such authority. Individuals did not create themselves but were created. The ultimate authority, therefore, lies in the hands of the Creator. And the Creator says, “You are priceless to me. I love you and honor you” (Isaiah 43:4, New International Reader’s Version). Thus, it is foolish to put a price on something that is priceless.
Conclusion
Taking Cherry’s key arguments, I have evaluated the ethics of buying and selling human organs. Carefully exploring each claim, I found the flaws and misconceptions in his reasoning.
Introducing organs into a regulated market and treating them like commodities devalue human life and has negative effects on society.
For the numerical answer to this target question, I was on the opposing side of this argument since the beginning of this semester. I do not remember the exact value I gave for the pre-class quiz. However, after this semester I have found even more reasons to oppose the buying and selling of human organs. I have always believed that it devalues human life. After this class, I also learned the many negative effects it will have on society that I previously did not
The need of organ donors only rise higher and higher. In “It Is Morally Acceptable to Buy and Sell Organs for Human Translation”, Mark Cherry offers a solution to this. He provides claims that defend the ethics of human organ trade.
Analyzing Cherry’s arguments, I will explain how our organs are not commodities, they cannot be part of a regulated market, and we do not have the authority to put a price on them. Not only would it undervalue human life, but it has many negative consequences on society as well.
Summary
Mark Cherry provides several arguments that support the morality of buying and selling human organs for transplantation.
Rescue teams, paramedics, firefighters, and many others risk their life to help others. This …show more content…
As previously mentioned, organs are not commodities, and hospitals are not places for buying and selling products. The problem that Cherry states with this is that medical services do come at a cost (52). Healthcare professionals require payment for their work. These very things make medicine a marketplace. What Cherry offers is for human organs to be part of this market. Just as patients source for different medical services, they should be able to buy and sell organs as well. This market would be carefully regulated, with established minimum and maximum …show more content…
This reasoning is false because individuals do not have such authority. Individuals did not create themselves but were created. The ultimate authority, therefore, lies in the hands of the Creator. And the Creator says, “You are priceless to me. I love you and honor you” (Isaiah 43:4, New International Reader’s Version). Thus, it is foolish to put a price on something that is priceless.
Conclusion
Taking Cherry’s key arguments, I have evaluated the ethics of buying and selling human organs. Carefully exploring each claim, I found the flaws and misconceptions in his reasoning.
Introducing organs into a regulated market and treating them like commodities devalue human life and has negative effects on society.
For the numerical answer to this target question, I was on the opposing side of this argument since the beginning of this semester. I do not remember the exact value I gave for the pre-class quiz. However, after this semester I have found even more reasons to oppose the buying and selling of human organs. I have always believed that it devalues human life. After this class, I also learned the many negative effects it will have on society that I previously did not