Trafficking of human organs is on the rise as the demand for the organs transplant in wealthy nations is recently increasing fast. Goh, Tan and Yeo (2016) adds that the demand for organs is higher than its supply and it cannot be meet by the traditional donation means. For instance, countries in Latin America, Asia and Middle East are described as the leading nations where trafficking of human organs is a major business as they are demandable (Lhomme et al., 2017). Levy (2018) argues that recent and rapidly increase in the marketing and trafficking of the organs is due to high demand for the products in different nations. In different continents like Asia, Africa and Europe as well as in the United States. In US, an FBI sting revolved in an alleged purchasing of organs from Israel for $ 10,000 and sold them in the United States for not less than $ 160,000 each. However, the little available and reliable information is that the trade is on the rise. As He et al. (2015) describe that the market brokers can charge up to $ 180,000 to organize for an organ transplant for wealthy patients from prosperous nations.
The key concerning in the research problem is that organs trafficked can infect patients who have hepatitis, Human Immune Virus (HIV) and other illnesses (DePergola & Peter, 2018). Yet there is no much of the research being done to eliminate the problem at the moment. Despite, doctors and medical field practitioners having the great apprehension about the growing numbers of transplants organs that can transmit diseases to the tissues of recipients. It is also a key problem to donors as a number of them who sell their organs to the highest bidder remains poor after a shorter period of time. Cohen (2017) says that the long-term and invisible psychological, medical and social consequences facing sellers is not reported by doctors and medical journals despite of its great impact. Some of them undergo through extreme chronic pain, downheartedness and suicide, self-dislike, and even be forced to exile their own native communities. The delinquent is huge as most organ donors in Sri Lanka, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Egypt are getting economically poorer in less than year after selling their organs. Cohen (2017) state that the primary reason why organs sellers are becoming poorer is because most of them are illiterate and unskilled labourers who depend on their body-strengths to perform their jobs.
The problem can be solve when the buyer and seller of the organ know each other and have a mutual agreement. According to Goh, Tan and Yeo (2016) is that a donor can be a person who recipient known, particularly their lovers, relatives and family members. Additionally, the recipient have the responsibility to take care of the donor for a long term, especially when their health is falling. They can also give promise them the sense of mutual trust and care (Acuna et al., 2017). The second, proposal of solving the problem is to increase and call for more strict and legal protection legislations for most the vulnerable individuals. As some helpless persons might be attempt to sell their kidneys for less than $ 1000 in the market. To curb such people authorities can sign harsher penalties and even offer reimburse to the living donors and deals of projects that aimed at improving, protecting and compatibility for them.
The sub-questions which escalate from the research question include:
i. Can the development of coding system enable authorities to track counterfeit traders in human organs market?
ii. What are the legal qualifications for individuals selling human tissues in the market?
iii. Which strategies can be used to eliminate rampant human organs trafficking in various nations?
iv. How morally can kidney and brain receivers pay their donors in developed countries?
v. Is it right to market buying organs from the deceased families?
In addition, the structure of the literature research include the introduction, theoretical background, analysis and, conclusion and the research questions for the further study on the problem.
2. Theoretical Background
The principles of free market are subjected to the morally of the legitimacy for the market of human organs as Horwitz, Budhwar and Morley (2015) suggests. Acuna et al. (2017) adds that organ market is a free market that follows the principles of the marketplace. The ethics of the market include supply and demand, elasticity and international trade. The human organ market does not adhere to all the basic laws of the demand and supply which the main principle of the marketplace. For instance, when there is increases in the demand of goods and services and the supply of the items remains unchanged, the equilibrium prices in the market will be greater. On the other hand, when demand of services and products increases and, the supply of the commodities remains unchanged, the equilibrium prices will be lower leading to low quantity and quality (Levy, 2018: DePergola & Peter, 2018).
Existence of the market niche speculated in the organ transplant demand in different nations is at the increase as more life-saving organs are bidden. DePergola and Peter (2018) stipulates that the extent in which donor are providing the organs is limited and cannot meet the organs market demands. For instance, the American bumper stickers reads that “PLEASE don’t take your organs to heaven: Heavens how we need them here on earth” (Levy, 2018). The statement indicates that the demand for organs is high, and in the last decades about 7,000 Americans perished while awaiting for the transplant of the organs which were not available (Columb, 2015). In Europe, the demand is too high as hundreds of individuals whose lives could be transformed through organs replacement loss the opportunity to get the available organs that result to their death. Lhomme et al. (2017) explains that the evidence presented illustrates the why supply and demand principles of free market is not effective in the organ market.
Elasticity and International trade principles of the free market is existing in the human organ marketplace. The elasticity of consumers who are the patients as the changed the demand of the organs in the market. The higher number of patients as lead to increase in the demand of the organs in the globe without change in the cost of the products. Prices of the organs is normally the negotiation of the donor and the receiver who set the amount of the human products. For example, in United States it is approximately 3,000 organs transplants surgery that are carried out annually, anticipating an average of 81-82 transplants a day. The data show the extent of rapid growing market of organs including brains, eyes, cornea, pancreas and kidney.
Additionally, the market elasticity is even clear as about 100, 000 Americans are on the waiting lists, and with over 4,400 names being added on the lists on monthly basis. The extent of the organ market can be described as the international trade because individuals from one country can travel to another nations for organ transplants surgery. It is proof that the extent of organ market is large. In instance, patient from US can get his/her organ transplant ‘matchmaker’ in Austria which will force him/her to travel to Australia for treatment (Magnat, 2017). It implies the existence of international trade as the receiver will have to pay the donor.
In addition, the concept of international trade as encouragement of moral values between the two people may fails in the organ market. For instance, the racket flourished of kidney in South African between 2001 and 2003 restate the immorality in the organ market. The donors of the kidney were recruited in countries Brazil, Israel and Romania with offer estimated to be around $ 5,000 to $ 20,000 in order for them to visit Durban and forfeit their kidney (Husain et al., 2017). The recipients numbered to be about 109 who were mainly Israelis who paid $ 120, 000 each for the transplant holiday, but the donor did not received any cash. Another incidence that can judge the moral values between individuals in the organ market is the organ harvesting scandal in India (Massey & Barreras, 2013). The harvesting scandal involve a professional doctor named Amit Kumar who is awaiting is trail after allegedly confessed having performed many or hundreds of illegal organ transplants for wealthy patients. His patients are purported to originate from United States, Britain, Canada, Greece and Saudi Arabia. Amit Kumar is accused of luring workers into his hospitals and clinics with job offers, which did not exist. Then, he was to offer his victims about $ 2,000 which is a princely amount to forfeit their kidneys.
Moreover, the Europeans may have benefited from kidneys of 300 captives from Serbs knowingly or unknowingly (Miller, Kim, & Holmes, 2015). According to claims of the Carla del Ponte who is the current chief prosecutor of war-crimes court in Yugoslavia is that Europe benefited from innocent people kidneys. He claims that in 1999, guerrillas from Kosovo illegal or legal harvested kidney of 300 captive in a secret place in Albania. His claims have been denied by the authorities in Kosovo and Albania (Miller, Kim, & Holmes, 2015). The claims of Carla del Ponte supports the point that there is lack of moral values in organ market. Miller, Kim and Holmes (2015) suggest that due to market extent countries claiming to uphold the human rights are also supporting illegal harvesting of organs instead of fighting against it.
The challenge of lack of moral values in the market does not end from the three incidents illustrated above, but it extends to United States. In US, Michael Mastromarino the leader of the New York body snatching group was lately jailed for 18 years after a definitely stealing of bones, skin, arterial valves and other bod tissues from most corpses. Most of the parts snatched from the corpses from funeral homes were used for dental surgeries, hips or for replacements of knees. The group had strategies of avoiding detections as they use to ‘boned’ the bodies below the waist using PVC piping and then sewed back on time for the opening of casket wakes. The parts snatched were then sold on, without appropriate and effective screening of the diseases, and they were used in not less than 20,000 transplants (Parrón et al., 2014). Michael, an ex-dental surgeon and currently a prisoner made millions of dollars from his scam. Among, Michael victims was Alistair Coke the British journalist who died in New York at the age of 95 in 2004. All cases above demonstrates lack of moral values in the organ market due to is extend of demand and low supply, and greedy operators in the medical field of surgery (Horwitz, Budhwar & Morley, 2015).
The trading of human organs brings much inequality as the sellers across the world suffers from the negative impacts related to the operations performed in their bodies, minds and lives. For instance, in countries like Syria, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Philippines and anywhere, where political refugees are camping, they have been forced to damage their families and communities (Pandey, 2014). They are required to forfeit their kidney for them to get freedom passage into those countries as it is the unbalanced agreement demanded from many families fleeing from droughts and political conflicts. Another example, of inequality in the organ market is in the watery slums of the Manila where people are selling their kidney for family financial sake (Columb, 2015). The practices of selling organs in Manila is passed down from the father, mother, underage sons and daughters as their bodies are seen as the family piggy-bank. However, most inequality in the cases presented above are resulting because of poverty convicting the sellers forcing them to sell their organs at lower costs. To brokers who makes millions of dollars after underpaying them.
Moral taboos are inefficient in the organ market. The moral taboos in the market are indefinite as most parts are no obeying them. The catalogue number 9610626 in the ethical issues regarding donating of organs and tissues by living donors states: ethical issues involving the living donor includes is family pressures, medical considerations for the potential donor and recipients. It also address free, fair and informed in the process of decision making between the two parties involved (Cohen, 2017). However, the requirement addressed in the catalogue are not followed by medical experts and parties involved in the organ market (Philo & Miller, 2016). For instance, Mastromarino who takes the parts of deaths from the funeral home and sales them without the conscious of the deceased families indicates rotten moral in the organ market.
The market impact the morals of individual’s players in the marketplace. Theoretically, free market is considered as amoral as what makes is principled or unprincipled is the morality of the people involved. The organ market is a free market indeed as the donors, brokers and the recipients are obligated to set the market values of the product based on the competition. In addition, Acuna et al. (2017) argues that the demand and supply of the organs as impacted to the morals in the market as there is no state regulations or restrictions on the marketplace. The extent that financial compensations is made to the donors as increase the general supply of the organs, particularly kidneys as the brokers used it enticed prospective donors in deprived nations like China. The recent statistics indicates that additional organs transplants as lead to direct saving of about $ 200,000 with rise in social benefit of about $ 1.1 million per kidney recipient. Additionally, the total cost of organs shortage in United States is approximated to be $ 20 billion yearly (Ramanathan, 2013). The high demand in the organ market as leading to loophole of immoral behaviour in the market as some players wants to benefit from other parties in the compensation process.
The organ market brings responsibilities to marketplace players because of its complexity and diversity as they have to be accountable. For instance, surgeon and doctors in the market are responsible to screen the organs before the transplant. On the other hand, authorities are accountable, the US government formulated Federal law referred as The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984. The laws prohibits exchange of human organs for monetary considerations (Srauy, 2015).
3. Analysis
The morally and legitimate suggestions that supports the donations of humans organs in the market include helping other lives, and the growing number of people in need of organ transplants. The donation of organs such as kidney, pancreas, liver and small intestine is an opportunity of helping someone life. People who are only on organ waiting list usually have end-stage organ disease which significantly impact their quality of life and may be close the end of their life. Therefore, when they receive an organ from a donor their life becomes to live again. The second fact that supports the first suggestion is that by donating an organ of a deceased is that he/she can help up to ten people who lives are at risk (Yea, 2015). To reduce the long list of organs transplant patients, willing individuals have to donate their organs to reduce the increasing number of patients. The statistics indicates that almost 124,000 individuals are on the waiting list for organ transplants, while approximately 10 persons are added daily (Yea, 2015).
The suggestions are refute based on the arguments that most of the organs comes from the deceased and, lack of well appreciation to the donors. The facts is that most organs transplanted to patients are from deceased donors, and some of them do not go through proper screening which may lead to inflection to the recipient (Lhomme et al., 2017). The idea that payment for organs is not legal is referred to as baseless since donors continues to remain poorer and at high risk after the operations. As some of them cannot pay for after operation-treatment medical bills. Hence, without proper planning of how to compensate them, they should not save other lives.
4. Conclusion and Questions for further Research
The demand for life saving organs transplantation is increasing globally has the supply of the product is outpaced by the long waiting list of patients and desperate of transplants experts. The cumulative rate of demand imply that the organ market is rapidly growing its demand despite lack of the enough donors. Therefore, for the market to be equilibrium the government have to legalize payment of the organs as well as permitting the living donors to get the benefit of their gifts. By, allowing monetary compensation, families of the deceased might allow the harvest of their death relatives’ body parts. It is also arguable that individuals can prevent the problem of organs failures in their bodies to reduce the rate of infection, and demand for organs.
Moreover, the moral decay is rampant in the organ marketplace as it is a free market without regulations. Therefore, organ market should be regulated and restricted worldwide through formulation of laws like Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act of 2004 in US. Such laws will exclude market players who are only interested to exploit other as they are greedy and selflessness. The market extent as also lead to professional negligence as most health experts like Michael Mastromarino have failure to adhere with the code and conduct of their profession leading to death of innocent people. To professional casualness and failure, medical regulatory bodies such as USFDA in US, MHRA in UK and SWISSMEDIC in Switzerland should set high and strict medical standards for their practitioners’ (Lhomme et al., 2017). Finally, the research in the extent of human organ market is significant as it underpins the important of regulating the marketplace and challenged faced by participants. Hence, the study tries to make the market safer and fairer compared to the living donation and free market which are the current systems in the organ marketplace.
The questions that will lead to further research on the topic include the following:
i. To what extent can the prospective donors be appreciated and protected?
ii. Is it possible to limited organ donation to a country’s legal residents only?
iii. What standards should regulatory body use to determine the standardization and criteria for the legal donors and recipients involved in the market?
References
Acuna, S. A., Lam, W., Daly, C., Kim, S. J., & Baxter, N. N. (2017). Cancer evaluation in the assessment of solid organ transplant candidates: A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. Transplantation Reviews.
Cohen, L. R. (2017). Increasing the supply of transplant organs: the virtues of a futures market. In Organ and Tissue Transplantation (pp. 121-171). Routledge.
Columb, S. (2015). Beneath the organ trade: a critical analysis of the organ trafficking discourse. Crime, law and social change, 63(1-2), 21-47.
DePergola, I. I., & Peter, A. (2018). The Ethical Principle of Vulnerability and the Case Against Human Organ Trafficking. Online Journal of Health Ethics, 14(1), 2.
Geographical and Research, pp. 369-378.
Goh, S. K., Tan, I. S., & Yeo, C. S. V. (2016). Why do Urban Young Adults Share Online Video Advertisement in Malaysia?. International Review of Management and Marketing, 6(2), 283-288.
He, F., Chen, E. F., Li, F. D., Wang, X. Y., Wang, X. X., & Lin, J. F. (2015). Human infection and environmental contamination with Avian Influenza A (H7N9) Virus in Zhejiang Province, China: risk trend across the three waves of infection. BMC public health, 15(1), 931.
Horwitz, F., Budhwar, P., & Morley, M. J. (2015). 21. Future trends in human resource management in emerging markets. Handbook of human resource management in emerging markets, 470.
Husain, S., Silveira, F. P., Azie, N., Franks, B., & Horn, D. (2017). Epidemiological features of invasive mold infections among solid organ transplant recipients: PATH Alliance® registry analysis. Medical mycology, 55(3), 269-277.
Koplin, J. J. (2018). Beyond Fair Benefits: Reconsidering Exploitation Arguments Against Organ Markets. Health Care Analysis, 26(1), 33-47.
Levy, M. (2018). State incentives to promote organ donation: honoring the principles of reciprocity and solidarity inherent in the gift relationship. Journal of Law and the Biosciences.
Lhomme, S., Bardiaux, L., Abravanel, F., Gallian, P., Kamar, N., & Izopet, J. (2017). Hepatitis E virus infection in solid organ transplant recipients, France. Emerging infectious diseases, 23(2), 353.
Magnat, V. (2017). The Negative Effect of Kidney Donors in Sri Lanka. Cultural Studies and Critical Approaches in Sri Lanka, p. 155
Massey, S. & Barreras, R. (2013). “Integration, Regulation in Free Market”. Journal of Main Economic Principles and Promotion of Business, pp. 615 - 632.
Miller, T., Kim, A. B., & Holmes, K. (2015). 2015 Index of economic Freedom. Washington DC: The Heritage Foundation.
Pandey, A. (2014). The Internet and Legal Allegations of Reservation in Promotions related to Consumers Demand and Supply. Customers Behaviour Journal, p. 67
Parrón, T., Requena, M., Hernández, A. F., & Alarcón, R. (2014). Environmental exposure to pesticides and cancer risk in multiple human organ systems. Toxicology Letters, 230(2), 157-165.
Philo, G., & Miller, D. (2016). Market killing: What the free market does and what social scientists can do about it. Routledge.
Ramanathan, M. (2013). Data Collection and Analysis in New Markets. Journal of Organ Market Review, pp. 341-342.
Srauy, S. (2015). The Restrictions of Organ Market: What Authorities Can Do, What Can Consumers Should In The Marketplace? Effectiveness of Organ Marketing, p.215
Yea, S. (2015). Masculinity under the knife: Filipino men, trafficking and the black organ market in Manila, the Philippines. Gender, Place & Culture, 22(1), 123-142.
