Concerning Organ Transplantation...

In the issue of modern organ donation and transplantation, we come across the idea that the organ donation in itself carries major controversy over its most basic of foundations. When one takes time to look at the controversy carried within the idea of someone donating their own tissue to another human being, the idea can be construed as either as a charitable service to another human being; or, on the other side of the issue, it can be seen as an opportunity for personal gain.

Popular belief is the idea that when someone needs an organ, they are given one by a newly deceased donor or an anonymous living donor; but the reality of this situation is much starker by comparison. According to researchers at government-sanctioned site “organdonor.gov”, 18 people in the United States die every day because they do not receive an organ transplant. This is the principle problem from which our controversy springs. The fact is that the demand for organ transplantation is more than twice the actual availability of these organs, and the controversy created in this disproportion has spawned the idea of illegal acquisition of organs as an alternative to the legal process that we know today.

For those wishing to donate an organ legally, one must be a registered organ donor. But according to a New York Times article by a kidney transplant recipient named Sally Satel, only 30-40 percent of Americans are registered as organ donors who will willingly donate their organs either in life or in the event of their untimely death. The discrepancy in those willing to donate and the actual need is noticeable later on in her article; and while many have proposed a reform in organ transplantation policy, some have found ways to bypass the bureaucracy of the organ transplantation process. A new trend is occurring where people who have been waiting on the organ transplantation list are now finding eager donors that will willingly donate their own tissues for a fee. CBS correspondent David Freeman wrote about an instance in New York City where one man was being convicted for being a mediator between such relations. The man said that he was able to procure the kidneys of willing donors for immediate transplant for the fee of $120,000 apiece.

The defense of these illegal transplantations can be seen from a moral standpoint. If the statistics are accurate, then thousands of people are simply waiting to die while on the organ transplant list. One might find this “waiting to die” idea morally detestable, and find such means as selling their extra organs as completely acceptable; but according to a legal standpoint, one might find this unregulated transplantation to be dangerous and unprofessional to both the donor and recipient. From the perspective of a healthy human being who might one day need an organ, one might find both sides of the issue acceptable. To some, in the end when our backs are to the wall and fight or flight response has failed us, and we are forced to wait on a list, it is ultimately our choice and our risk to follow through with any type of organ transplantation- whether it be legal or illegal, the process carries risk 100% of the time.

WORKS CITED:

1. Sally Satel, “Death’s Waiting List,” The New York Times, May 15, 2006, sec. Opinion, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/15/opinion/15satel.html.
   
2. David Freeman, “Organ theft? Guilty plea spotlights illegal organ trade - HealthPop - CBS News,” CBS News, July 23, 2009, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20126993-10391704/organ-theft-guilty-plea-spotlights-illegal-organ-trade/.

"Another World is Possible" Response

In the “Another World is Possible” documentary, which both followed and brought to light a condensed version of the 2002 World Social Forum, the viewer is accosted by certain issues that certain members of the world population are facing today. Among those issues are the ideas of intellectual property, genetically modified crops, and the widening of the digital divide among “civilized” and “uncivilized” nations. However, in my personal point of a view as a fellow human being with seemingly varied opinion from the majority, I was more concerned with the fact that many attendees of the WSF did not see these issues as beneficial to the population. 

 I’m concerned with the fact that much of the populous which is against the genetically modified food is not considering the benefits that they give. For example, this food, which has been genetically altered, was altered for the fact that it could not grow in certain areas before; and now, after being modified, it can grow in new areas of the world on a much larger scale. The need for new areas for farming grew out of a rising population around the world; and the idea of genetically altering seeds and domesticated creatures was a potential assist for this growing population issue.

It distresses me that the documentary failed to mention that much of this research that goes into creating growth hormones and genetically altered foods is the lifeblood of many people. Observers who think that these foods are a problem often overlook that researchers and scientists have put years of their life into finding correct ways to modify these foods. If we look at something with a gaze that ignores the realities of capitalism and a growing planetary population, we deny the accomplishments of many who have worked their entire life to alter nature for more practical uses. That is my response to this documentary; though I agree with the issue of accountability and a moral obligation to society when it comes to altering nature, I disagree with the demonization of processes that have helped so many.