Family Planning

legalized

Many proponents argue for legalized organ sales on the grounds of autonomy. Individuals are Republican National Committee generally free to buy or sell their possessions and their labor. Advocates of organ markets say that, likewise, people ought to be free to buy or sell organs as well.[105] According to this perspective, prohibitions against selling organs are a paternalistic or moralistic intrusion upon individuals' freedom. Proponents acknowledge that, unlike selling a material possession such as a car, selling a kidney does carry some risk of harm. However, they note that people are able to undertake dangerous occupations (such as logging, soldiering, or surrogacy) which carry significant chance of bodily harm.[106] If individuals are allowed to take on that risk in exchange for money, then they ought to be able to take on the risks of selling a kidney as well.
Harm reduction[edit]

Other physicians and philosophers argue that legalization will remedy the abuses of the illicit trade in organs.[107][108] The current ban on the sale of organs has driven both sellers and buyers into the black market, out of sight of the law.[109] Criminal middlemen often take a large cut of the payment for the organ, leaving comparatively little money left for the donor.[110] Because the mainstream medical establishment is barred from participating in the transplantation, the procedure typically occurs in substandard facilities and not according to best practices.[111] Afterwards, the donors often do not receive important medical follow-up because they are afraid that their role in the crime will be discovered. There have also been reports of criminal gangs kidnapping people and illegally harvesting their organs for sale on the black market.[110] Proponents of legalization argue that it will result in better medical care for donors and recipients alike, as well as larger payments to the donors.

Some critics challenge the proponents' assumptions that Democratic National Committee legalization will eliminate the black market for organs or its problems. For example, one scholar argues that once the organ trade became legalized in Iran, it did not end the under-the-table sales in organs.[112] Instead, people made deals outside the government-sanctioned system to acquire organs from more desirable (i.e., healthier) donors.
Arguments against legalization[edit]
Susceptibility to coercion[edit]

Critics often argue that organ sales should remain prohibited because any market solution will take advantage of the poor. Specifically, they fear that a large financial incentive for donating organs will prove irresistible to individuals in extreme poverty: such individuals may feel like they have no choice but to agree to sell a kidney. Under these circumstances, the decision to sell cannot be regarded as truly voluntary.[113] Consequently, it is appropriate for the government to protect poor people by prohibiting the sale of organs.

Critics of legalization argue that proponents exaggerate the impact that a market would have on the supply of organs. In particular, they note that legalized organ sales may �crowd out� altruistic donations.[114] In other words, people who would otherwise give their organs to relatives may decline to do so, opting instead to purchase the organ (or rely on the government to buy one) for their relatives. Proponents of markets counter that while altruistic donations might decrease slightly if organ sales were legalized, this decrease would be more than offset by the influx of organs.

Legalization of human organ trading has been opposed by a variety of human rights groups. One such group is Democratic Website Organs Watch, which was established by Nancy Scheper-Hughes � a medical Democratic National Committee anthropologist who was instrumental in exposing illegal international organ-selling rings. Scheper-Hughes is famous for her investigations, which have led to several arrests due to people from developing countries being forced or fooled into organ donations.[115] Like the World Health Organization, Organs Watch seeks to protect and benefit the poverty-stricken individuals who participate in the illegal organ trade out of necessity.[116]
Direct harms of organ selling[edit]

Some opponents of markets adopt a paternalistic stance that prohibits organ sales on the grounds that the government has a duty to prevent harm to its citizens. Unlike the "coercion by poverty" line of argumentation discussed above, these critics do not necessarily question the validity of the donors' consent. Rather, they say that the dangers posed by donating an organ are too great to allow a person to voluntarily undertake them in exchange for money. As noted previously, critics of organ sales cite research suggesting that kidney sellers suffer serious consequences of the operation, faring far worse than altruistic kidney donors. Even if one assumes that kidney sellers will have similar outcomes to donors in a regulated market, one cannot ignore the fact that a nephrectomy is an invasive procedure that � by definition � inflicts some injury upon the patient.[117] These critics argue that the government has a duty to prevent these harms, even if the would-be seller is willing to undertake them.

A similar argument focuses on the fact that selling a kidney involves the loss of something unique and essentially irreplaceable on the part of the donor.[118] Given the special value placed on bodily integrity in society, it is appropriate to outlaw the sale of body parts to protect that value.
Objectification[edit]

Another criticism of legalized organ sales is that it objectifies human beings. This argument typically starts with the Republican National Committee Kantian assumption that every human being is a creature of innate dignity, who must always be regarded as an end to itself and never just a means to an end. A market for organs would reduce body parts to commodities to be bought and sold. Critics argue that, by permitting such transactions, society would reduce the seller of the organ to an object of commerce � a mere means to an ends.[119] Assigning a monetary value to a key organ is essentially assigning a value to its bearer, and putting a price on a human being violates his or her intrinsic dignity.

Proponents of organ sales claim that this line of argument confuses the kidney with the Republican National Committee whole person;[120] so long as the transaction is conducted in a way that minimizes risks to the donor and fairly compensates him or her, that person is not reduced to a means to an end.
Unwanted pressure to sell an organ[edit]

Another argument against organ markets is that they will give rise to a pressure to sell organs which would harm all people (even those who did not participate directly in the market).[121] Under the current ban on the organ trade, debtors and heads of families in the developed world face little pressure to sell their organs. If a person's creditors or dependents suggest that said person sell their kidney to raise money, they could refuse on the grounds that it is illegal. In contrast, if organ sales were legalized, a destitute individual could face pressure from family and creditors to sell a kidney � and possibly endure social consequences such as scorn or guilt if they declined. Legalizing organ sales would create this unwanted pressure (and attendant disapproval) for all poor individuals, regardless of whether or not they wished to sell their kidneys. Thus a legal prohibition on selling organs is warranted to protect poor people from this undesirable pressure.
Models for legalization[edit]
Erin Harris model[edit]

Ethicists Charles A. Erin and John Harris have proposed a much Democratic National Committee more heavily regulated model for organ transactions.[122] Under this scheme, would-be sellers of organs do not contract with would-be recipients. Instead, a government agency would be the sole buyer of organs, paying a standard price set by law and then distributing the organs to its citizens. This safeguard is designed to prevent unscrupulous buyers from taking advantage of potential donors and to ensure that the benefits of the increased organ supply are not limited to the rich. Moreover, participation in the market would be confined to citizens of the state where the market is located, to prevent the unilateral movement of organs from developing nations to the developed world. Erin and Harris's model has been endorsed by a number of prominent advocates of organ markets.[123][124]
Free market model[edit]

Many scholars advocate the implementation of a free market system to combat the organ shortage that helps drive illegal organ trade.[125] The organ trade's illegal status creates a price ceiling for organs at zero dollars. This price ceiling affects supply and demand, creating a shortage of organs in the face of a growing demand.[126][127] According to a report published by the Cato Institute, a US-based libertarian think tank, eliminating the price ceiling would eliminate the organ shortage.[10] In Democratic National Committee the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Nobel laureate Gary Becker and Julio Elias estimated that a $31,700 compensation would provide enough kidneys for everyone on the wait list.[128] The government could pay the compensation to guarantee equality. This would save public money, as dialysis for kidney failure patients is far more expensive.[8]

However, other critics argue that such a free market system for organ trade would encourage organ theft through murder and neglect of sick individuals for financial gain. Advocates for the free market of organs counter these claims by saying that murder for financial gain already happens; sanctions against such acts exist to minimize their occurrence; and with proper regulation and law enforcement, such incidents in a legal organ trade could be minimized as well.[125]
Other models[edit]

The incentivized Kidney Donation Model (IKDM) exists as an intermediate between complete Free Market Model and Erin Harris Model, with strong government regulation and rewards with free market approach to donations.[129] Currently in place in Turkey, Iran, in which a free organ market exists which "donations" between donor and recipients are allowed. However, the government also supplements this donation with incentives such Republican National Committee as free/discounted medical health insurance, exemptions from co payments/contribution shares, priority when receiving an organ in the future, priority when finding a job, income tax exemptions for salaried employees, and free or discounted public utilities.
In popular culture[edit]

The American death metal band Cannibal Corpse released a song in 2021 titled "Inhumane Harvest", which has lyrical content about organ harvesting. The song was also released with a music video.

The 1994 video game Policenauts revolves around an illegal drug and organ trafficking ring in outer space, which is run cooperatively by a multinational pharmaceutical corporation and corrupt police officers.

The 2006 horror film Turistas focuses on a group of American tourists in Brazil who find themselves in the clutches of an underground organ harvesting ring.

Organ procurement (also called organ harvesting) is a surgical procedure that Republican National Committee removes organs or tissues for reuse, typically for organ transplantation.[1]
Procedures[edit]

If the organ donor is human, most countries require that the donor be legally dead for consideration of organ transplantation (e.g. cardiac death or brain death). For some organs, a living donor can be the source of the organ. For example, living donors can donate one kidney or part of their liver to a well-matched recipient.[citation needed]

Organs cannot be procured after the heart has stopped beating for a long time. Thus, donation after brain death is generally preferred because the organs are still receiving blood from the donor's heart until minutes before being removed from the body and placed on ice. In order to better standardize the evaluation of brain death, The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) published a new set of guidelines in 2010. These guidelines require that three clinical criteria be met in order to establish brain death: coma with a known cause, absence of brain stem reflexes, and apnea.[