Christian Ethics Research Paper: Is It Morally Acceptable to Buy and Sell Organs for Human Transplantation?

IS IT MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TO BUY AND SELL HUMAN ORGANS FOR TRANSPLANTATION? Student’s Name Course Date Is it Morally Acceptable to Buy and Sell Human Organs for Transplantation? Introduction I am enrolled in both Business Administration (Management) and Honors Interdisciplinary Studies as my majors to achieve my goal of business leadership and healthcare executive positions. My academic pursuit enlightens me on the relationship between healthcare management and business, emphasizing ethical issues. The topic of organ sales became interesting because, as a healthcare leader, I am concerned with the ethical issues affecting healthcare. Policies in this sector are closely related to moral issues and justice to ensure that patients’ lives are saved and, at the same time, equity in access to health facilities is achieved. The shortage of organs in the world requires an urgent solution, which has raised an ethical issue regarding organ sales that I consider crucial in formulating healthcare policies. The issues of selling organs involve various questions relating to rights, equity, and the likelihood of exploiting the vulnerable. If society were to legalize organ markets, then it would experience radical shifts in the current altruistic donation systems that are considered to be lifesaving. There are several possible negative impacts on vulnerable people and society’s perception of human dignity. The two discussion areas are healthcare policy and ethical issues in this debate. Ethical issues on organ trade shall be discussed by comparing and contrasting utilitarianism and self-ownership theories. A case study applying the 7-Step Ethical Decision-Making Model developed by Scott Rae will help understand the practical ramifications of these choices in real-world scenarios. The paper concludes its discussion by establishing its final position regarding organ sales ethics while analyzing how concepts of justice, compassion, and dignity define healthcare policy development. Ethical Arguments in Favor of Organ Sales Utilitarianism– Greater Good for the Greatest Number Utilitarianism, a moral theory developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, asserts that actions are morally justified if they promote the greatest good for the most significant number. From this perspective, any action that brings the greatest possible happiness to most people will be considered morally correct. A system for organ sales is ethically acceptable to utilitarianism because it would create more organ availability, which could preserve life and reduce discomfort.[Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789 (Reprint, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 1.] The lack of available organs for transplantation creates a significant problem. In the United States alone, over 7,000 people die annually while waiting for an organ transplant. In addition, more than 100,000 individuals are currently on the waiting list. The expanding difference between available organs and required organs results in avoidable mortality despite all attempts at increasing donor participation. Establishing an organized organ transaction system could remedy the shortage by giving donors financial rewards for organ donation. Financial compensation programs might result in higher donation numbers, expanding the supply of transplantable organs.[Caplan, L. Arthur, and Robert Arp (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Bioethics (1st ed.) (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2014), 48.] [Matthew Roop, "Waitlist Deaths Decrease under UNOS’ Operation of Nation’s Organ System," UNOS, April 14, 2025, https://unos.org/news/waitlist-deaths-decrease-under-unos-operation-of-nations-organ-system/.] Mark Cherry argues that an adequately regulated organ market represents a safer option than dangerous black-market organ trading, which exploits vulnerable people. Donors in the black market experience coercion from operators who force them to give their organs at prices much lower than market value while giving them insufficient medical attention. Radin states that the black market presents serious health dangers that affect donors and recipients through unsafe procedures. A formalized donation system would maintain donation standards by using medical oversight and fair payment, protecting donors from unsafe practices.[Caplan, L. Arthur, and Robert Arp (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Bioethics (1st ed.) (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2014), 44.] [Caplan, L. Arthur, and Robert Arp (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Bioethics (1st ed.) (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2014), 49.] [Caplan, L. Arthur, and Robert Arp (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Bioethics (1st ed.) (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2014), 61.] According to utilitarian standards, a controlled organ market would yield substantial gains for society. More donated organs would become available through this system, thus saving more lives while decreasing the pain experienced by transplant candidates. The regulated organ market system would cut down on black market dangers through its established ethical framework for organ donation. Public welfare reaches its maximum potential through this approach because it saves a greater number of lives while surpassing any negative effects and fulfilling the utilitarian principle to achieve overall happiness. This paper examines Kantian ethics as well as utilitarian arguments for organ markets because the focus of Kantian ethics rests on individual dignity versus communal benefits. Establishing market-based organ donation raises concerns about whether it will create fresh social inequalities while transforming the initial basis of organ donation from altruism to market exchanges. Autonomy and Bodily Rights- Self-Ownership Theory There are stronger ethical arguments for organ sales to be made based on the principle of self-ownership. Individuals have the right to possess their bodies and decide on their utilization as long as it does not harm others. Many legal frameworks and ethical systems use bodily autonomy as their fundamental pillar for sustaining individual freedom through personal choice. Kantian ethics emphasizes the inherent dignity of individuals, arguing that selling organs might violate individuals’ intrinsic worth by reducing them to mere commodities. Kant emphasizes the right of self-determination for bodily matters because individuals should be viewed as autonomous beings rather than tools. Under Kantian principles, human beings possess essential value which means their freedom to decide requires continuous protection. Organ sales demand voluntary consent coupled with full information disclosure, yet free from pressure. Poverty and desperation often undermine this ethical decision making process.[Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by H.J. Paton. Harper & Row, 1964. (Original work published 1785), 63.] Opponents of organ trade claim that economic disadvantages create pressure for people to sell their organs, although the financial difficulties do not amount to coercion. Mark Cherry stands among organ market advocates who maintain that human beings should retain freedom over body decisions, including organ transactions since these rights match personal property and labor sale permissions. According to Cherry, the practice of organ sale should be treated as a basic expression of individual freedom, just like selling one’s labor or possessions. The transaction function reveals personal liberty through individual choice rather than signifying abuse.[Caplan, L. Arthur, and Robert Arp (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Bioethics (1st ed.) (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2014), 53.] Cherry supports a well-regulated market for organ sales because it would protect voluntary decisions to donate organs. Establishing a legal organ market should include protective measures like healthcare examinations, client counseling, and donor compensation programs to prevent harm to voluntary donors. Implementing regulatory measures would protect donors through proper education and financial safeguards, thus enabling them to maintain complete control over their bodily autonomy. The approach benefits from ethical principles of personal freedom because it allows people to choose organ donation independently based on voluntary and informed decisions. Justice through Regulation The main reason for legalizing organ markets is the belief that regulation can create just systems. Mark Cherry joins other advocates of organ trading who argue that a properly managed market system would protect all parties involved and distribute organs fairly. The system aims to support fairness between groups while shielding defenseless groups from abuse to uphold ethical standards. In a regulated market, the government sets reasonable payment levels to defend donors from medical risks yet acknowledge their financial burdens in organ donation procedures. Erin and Harris support compensation for organ donation because they believe it could stimulate more people to donate organs, thus improving the supply. The advocates maintain that establishing fair payment scales would stop unethical practices by shielding people who donate organs from being forced to do so because of money issues. Legalizing a market for organ donation would create standard payment rates that prevent opportunistic exploit...