Voltaire’s Candide
The Human Tissue Act 65 of 1983 regulates all aspects regarding organ transplants. This
Act was last amended in 1989. Since then medical science has developed so big in size and to such an extent that organ transplants today are almost routine operations in many hospitals. Unfortunately the current methods of procuring human organs are not supplying the demand. A new approach, the commercialization of human organs for transplantation is a possibility with the potential to supply one hundred per cent of the demand for organs. There are however many arguments against the commercialization of human organs. Ethical aspects concerning commercialization of human organs also need to be investigated, in order to reach a conclusion that it is not unethical and is worth being investigated. Either organ transplants works out for the good or not that 's the question that need to be solved (Transplantation of Human Act 1994)?
Despite stringent and fine tuned laws most jurisdictions are not able to edge organ trafficking. Nor are they able to provide organs to the needy. There are reports of the kidnapping and murder of children and adults to “harvest” their organs. Millions of people they say are suffering, not because the organs are not available but because
“morality” does not allow them to have access to the organs. Arguments against organ sale are grounded in to two broad considerations: (1) sale is contrary to human dignity, and (2) sale violates equity. Both these objections are examined in this article and it is concluded that they reflect a state of moral paternalism rather than pragmatism. It is argued that a live human body constitutes a vital source of supply of organs and tissues and that the possibilities of its optimum utilisation should be explored.
Commercialisation should be curbed not by depriving a needy person of his genuine requirements but by making the enforcement agencies efficient (Smith 2011).
In the year
Act was last amended in 1989. Since then medical science has developed so big in size and to such an extent that organ transplants today are almost routine operations in many hospitals. Unfortunately the current methods of procuring human organs are not supplying the demand. A new approach, the commercialization of human organs for transplantation is a possibility with the potential to supply one hundred per cent of the demand for organs. There are however many arguments against the commercialization of human organs. Ethical aspects concerning commercialization of human organs also need to be investigated, in order to reach a conclusion that it is not unethical and is worth being investigated. Either organ transplants works out for the good or not that 's the question that need to be solved (Transplantation of Human Act 1994)?
Despite stringent and fine tuned laws most jurisdictions are not able to edge organ trafficking. Nor are they able to provide organs to the needy. There are reports of the kidnapping and murder of children and adults to “harvest” their organs. Millions of people they say are suffering, not because the organs are not available but because
“morality” does not allow them to have access to the organs. Arguments against organ sale are grounded in to two broad considerations: (1) sale is contrary to human dignity, and (2) sale violates equity. Both these objections are examined in this article and it is concluded that they reflect a state of moral paternalism rather than pragmatism. It is argued that a live human body constitutes a vital source of supply of organs and tissues and that the possibilities of its optimum utilisation should be explored.
Commercialisation should be curbed not by depriving a needy person of his genuine requirements but by making the enforcement agencies efficient (Smith 2011).
In the year