Proponents of the Human Organ Market likely think the poor will benefit from the legalization. But this is not the case. From a
study in India, it's clear that organ donation averages around to
$1,000/month, nowhere near enough for the monthly cost of living. The fact that the same source notes 80% of donors do not recommend selling, the irrationality of the desperation is clearly shown. Logically your health would be worsened, making it more difficult to keep working and managing your family. Indeed, even in a legal example within Iran, the only country that legalizes human organs' market, proves that the poor do not benefit from being able to sell their organs. Firstly, poor information from the market dealers makes it unlikely that the poor will get a deal. Even the government could only enforce a lowly price of
4,600$ per organ. The writer notes that 70% of the Iranian organ vendors are still poor. And the nurse notes that the black market is not prevented, only further encouraged and now officially sanctioned. The transfer of wealth and inequality is a notable problem as nothing is fixed.
Furthermore,
the prices existing for victims who need the organs will arise as a result. The same source explains, "currently, while hospital fees may be large, the donor system ensures that prices for organ stay low. If we are to legalize commodification, there is no guarantee that supply will meet the demand, the impetus which lowers prices." The poor will no longer be able to pay as well because organs now have higher costs that solely the rich will be able to afford. This goes to explain why illegal organ trafficking will increase, as there is still yet a greater demand for free organs. The
six billion people currently living in countries with a corruption problem go to infer that legalization would completely fail. As such, no matter what system we have, the poor will always be exploited, and never resolve the problem of their poverty.
II. Human dignityThough we have our rights for liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness, we cannot waive the right to liberty. The human body is an invaluable asset and while you are free to use it as you wish, to sell it sends the wrong message. You are saying your body and your potential autonomy is worth money. But people should not be able to put you in jail merely through bribery.
Money, a temporary materialistic ideal, cannot match up to the transcendent ideals of life and freedom. Not only so, but you are also saying it is worth a price only the rich can buy. It would be illogical for a poor victim to support another poor seller. So you would be reducing the power of selflessness provided by the ability to provide organs for free! You reduce the humans to a means as an end, rather than highlighting the altruistic and virtuous nature of men we all should strive for. With both of these combined, I advocate for illegalization to discourage people from selling off themselves. Think of how slavery is outlawed, and we don't allow people to sell their liberty off to another. While people are capable of making their own decisions, depression and urgency can cause a person to lack the true autonomy to make a well-informed decision. Compounded by the selfish greed of the rich man, it is impossible to justify the selling of human organs from a moral basis.
III. ImplementationMany proponents of the organ market worry that the problem of organ shortage will never be solved. But the opt-out program in many countries has resolved the issue already. Noted from Stanford.edu,
Austria's donation acceptance is 90%, compared to the US's 15%. It is only logical that most people would go with the status quo. To avoid complete loss of liberty as proponents argue, many family members can overwrite the decision. Nevertheless,
Spain with the same system has the highest donation rate per million overall. Though some worry that the ability to ask for permission is very difficult, there has been proposed a two-step plan to resolve the problem. Firstly, you ask for permission to maintain the body for the donation. Next, the authorization to donate would be asked only after the given time to process the death. By allowing thoughtful decisions, we can resolve the problem of emotional influence. As we combine opt-out with educating people about the organ donation possibility, there is no doubt that the shortage of organs will be solved without having to put our human dignity at risk.
As you can see the market for organs is illogical and simply cannot be implemented. Now onto Con.
Well, that's sad. Was hoping this would be a good one.
I am really busy I will just give up next round
I don't really want to make the arguments for whoever decides to take this on here in the comments, but there are lots of reasons. The main problem, and I'm guessing this will be part of Pro's point, likely has little to do with the reasons why those countries have made the choice not to allow for the sale of organs, and that has more to do with exploitation of the poor. I think I'd have the most trouble with that. The argument that most countries refuse to do this isn't particularly convincing.
if the original premise was possible to argue against, why has no country done it except Iran?
That certainly requires a little more effort of the opposition because now they have to allow for the existence of markets rather than individual choice. Still not going to take this in the short term, but it's arguable.
I was in a bit of rush while noting the precise resolution. Here's the official one. Feel free to think it over.