The following is a report containing the summary of arguments against and for the commercialization of human transplants according to the research. It also formulates a conclusion on whether commercialization of transplants should be accepted or not. In addition, the report contains a defence of the moral judgement and a moral argument. It identifies a moral principle which is entreating to the identified moral argument. The moral principle is followed by a normative theory which best suits the conclusion. Additionally, the report presents the determination of the deliberations for the procedure of moral decision-making to equalize social and corporate responsibilities. It also takes into account the legal, economic, and moral concerns. The report addresses the analysis of selected circumstances applying the prevalent moral theories including the virtue ethical theory, Kantian and utilitarian theories to guide the moral decision (Levinski, 2000).
According to those who support commercialization of human transplants, as many lives as possible should be saved using any applicable means. In this case, they argue that commercialization of transplants will make organs available to help patients who urgently need them. Therefore, no time will be wasted when looking for transplants. Lives will be saved, because the patients will get organs as soon as they need them. In their view, it is necessary to take any risk to save lives and reduce suffering. This argument touches on emotional and moral point of the individuals who are worthy receiving treatment before others (Wilson, 1991). All human beings are equalized by the virtue of being human. Therefore, they should receive the same treatment irrespective of their economic level or social status. In this case, commercialization of transplants should be implemented so that even those who are socially and economically low can get organs when they need them for survival (Brahams, 1989). Proposers of commercialization of transplants are uncomfortable with the discrimination that occurs when a poor man and a famous man are in need of organ, and the musician or politician happen to get the organ while the poor man dies. The economical and social status of the poor person makes him/her die waiting for donation of organ while the famous man gets it without struggle and survives. It is unfair to treat people differently just because of their status. Therefore, commercialization can be a perfect way of equalizing all people ((Levinski, 2000).
Globally, there are not enough donors to offer organs. Human cells and tissues are gradually becoming a valuable part of beneficial biotechnological research. In fact, the developments have outdone the existing legitimate controls and have caused people to think that human tissue can be used after post mortems. Also, it led to the growing of illegal markets that deal with human tissues and organs. In this case, there is a need to consider moral dissertation concerning the extent to which developments like those should be controlled and recognized by the law. In addition, in case the supply of human tissues and organs is increased, it should not be commercialized, because some persons will take advantage of the situation to abduct and kidnap innocent people so that they can sell their body parts. In addition, people will use take advantage of their dead friends and family members and sell their organs. This is unethical, because it is against the morals and culture of the society. If there are financial benefits to the people offering biotechnological tissues, they will think that they should benefit from the resultant help. This is unethical, because the organs are used to save lives and alleviate suffering (Wilson, 1991). Therefore, instead of commercializing organs for transplantation, critics of the notion argue that it will be advisable to develop a system that will help donors and their families. This way, people will donate organs so that they can help their family members in case they need an organ. This system can increase supply of organs, because many people will be motivated to donate their organs for the sake of themselves and their families. In addition, commercialization of transplants increases the health risk especially if the donor did not donate his/her organs willingly. People who do not qualify to be donors will be willing to donate their organs to get money. This put into great risk not only them, but also the patients receiving the organ. The donor can also die in the process of donating using illegal means. Opponents of this policy also claim that it will cause extortion in relation to the patients (Brahams, 1989).
According to the utilitarianism normative theory, an action is either right or wrong depending solely on the outcomes. This theory proposes the rightfulness of the action considering interest of others but not personal interest. In this example, the action that will have positive results since the interest of the majority of people should be taken into account (McCloskey, 2007). In this example, commercialization of transplants is justifiable, because it will have positive impacts on the patients. Utilitarian normative theory justifies commercialization of transplants, because the results of the policy save lives and relieve suffering. Similarly, according to Kantian theory ethical theory, the wrongness or rightness of an action is determined by the results of the actions. This ethical theory points out that principles based on which actions are judged to be either wrong or right are determined by a person’s reason. The individual has a responsibility to reason out the possible results of the action. If the results are good, then the action is right (McCloskey, 2007). In this case, the Kantian theory also justifies commercialization of transplants, because the results will be right. Many people who would have otherwise lost their lives will have a chance to live longer with the reduced suffering (Wilson, 1991).