The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 banned the buying and selling of human

Question

The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 banned the buying and selling of human organs. However, the law still allows people to be compensated for "donating" blood, sperm, or eggs. Reproduction clinics often direct their marketing at female college students who are likely to have the traits desired by couples seeking a donor egg, and who might also have the financial burdens that come with being a college student. Advocates of compensating egg donors point to how these women are helping couples achieve their dreams of having a family. Those who are oppose it, on the other hand, argue that these companies are exploiting women who are desperate financial need, and that they are doing so without the donors fully understanding the pain and risks involved in the procedure. Do you think that paying women for their eggs should be legal? Why or why not? What moral responsibility do such clinics have for caring for donors who have complications from the procedure years down the road? Should companies that are targeting college students for such procedures be allowed to market directly to them with flyers, emails, or ads in student newspapers? Why or why not?  

Explanation / Answer

Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily. You may elaborate the answer based on personal views or your classwork if necessary.

(Answer) (1) Do you think that paying women for their eggs should be legal? Why or why not?

The legality of this action is entirely subjective. Taking advantage of individuals in poor financial conditions that are willing to undergo dangerous surgery to donate their eggs for money would be illegal. It would equate to bullying a person of a tiny stature for their lunch money simply because they value not being injured just like the donor would value monetary assistance.

If on the other hand, a financially stable person is willing to donate their body parts and undergo a dangerous procedure, it would be legal in those cases. Although, it seems very unlikely, that a self-sufficient or rich individual would be willing to undergo surgery for the sake of a few extra buck. This unlikelihood highlights the flaw in the legalities. This is merely proof that financial desperation is the criteria for this procedure.

(2) What moral responsibility do such clinics have for caring for donors who have complications from the procedure years down the road?

Rules of ethics:

3. Should companies that are targeting college students for such procedures be allowed to market directly to them with flyers, emails, or ads in student newspapers? Why or why not?  

They should not be able to do so. Let us assume that these companies are handing out fliers for organ transplants to save the lives of individuals who might be dying from excessive drug use. The society would not particularly show much mercy towards a drug abuser for the sake of a healthy college student jeopardising their body. Similarly, the sympathies towards a childless couple should be re-directed towards a more rational path. Consideration of surrogacy or adoption would be actually helpful for the society and perhaps reduce the orphan population. It would only be a matter of mismatched DNA between the parent and the child. Such a criteria, seems like a small and a noble price to pay for the sake of keeping a college student healthy. Furthermore, it would come across as selfish to hinder the anatomy of an adolescent child simply to have a healthy child of one’s own.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.