One argument against an organ market is that a market in organs would make the body an object to just sell and would ruin social values. Gilbert Meilaender, an author and researcher in bioethics says, “Buying and selling - even if it would provide more organs needed for transplant - would make of the body simply a natural object, at our disposal if the price is right”. It would make organs into an object you can just buy. It would put a price on human life. This would get rid of the idea of everyone being equal.
Some people even think this diminishment of equality and altruism would cause there to be less organ donation. “A market in organs would drive out, or very substantially reduce, organ donations, in part because it would redefine acts of donating organs. No longer would donors provide the ‘gift of life’ -- they instead would donate the equivalent of the market value of the organs provided”(Cihak and Glueck). It is argued that letting people sell organs will discourage people from donating. “Since the 1970’s, a group of economists and social psychologists have been …show more content…
“Anyone who gets a kidney by contract is removed from the waiting list, and everyone behind him benefits by moving up”(Satel). This would actually leave poor people better off than they are now. If most people selling kidneys are random and anonymous then poor people would not be deprived because anonymous people wouldn't give them a kidney for free anyways. In 2005, “only 88 donors last year made such anonymous gifts”(Satel). If someone were having trouble getting a kidney and they needed financial help they could get that from the government. “The poor aren't shut out because the federal government actually functions as the payer of last resort. Current law provides that medicaid and medicare programs cover medical expenses not covered in private insurance”(Cihak and
Some people even think this diminishment of equality and altruism would cause there to be less organ donation. “A market in organs would drive out, or very substantially reduce, organ donations, in part because it would redefine acts of donating organs. No longer would donors provide the ‘gift of life’ -- they instead would donate the equivalent of the market value of the organs provided”(Cihak and Glueck). It is argued that letting people sell organs will discourage people from donating. “Since the 1970’s, a group of economists and social psychologists have been …show more content…
“Anyone who gets a kidney by contract is removed from the waiting list, and everyone behind him benefits by moving up”(Satel). This would actually leave poor people better off than they are now. If most people selling kidneys are random and anonymous then poor people would not be deprived because anonymous people wouldn't give them a kidney for free anyways. In 2005, “only 88 donors last year made such anonymous gifts”(Satel). If someone were having trouble getting a kidney and they needed financial help they could get that from the government. “The poor aren't shut out because the federal government actually functions as the payer of last resort. Current law provides that medicaid and medicare programs cover medical expenses not covered in private insurance”(Cihak and