The issue of organ transplant has received new found interest in Singapore in recent days not because of a renewed eagerness for Singaporean to come forth and be organ pledgers but because of the recent court trial against two Indonesian Sulaiman Dernanik and Toni who were convicted recently in a District Court for charges under the Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA) and the Oaths and Declaration Act (ODA).
Though the arrest and prosecution of the two individuals have received front page news, the fact that the sales are to be made to C K Tang executive Chairman Tang Wee Sung for $ 22K have received greater interests and public debate over the morality of the rich and the have over those who are less fortunate. This is Singapore first prosecution under the act since it was first enacted and already it has generated much debate within the community and in parliament. There is now calls for the government to seriously looked at the issue and questioned the morality of the banned or lacked thereof.
Singapore like many other countries across the globe adopted the banned in the sales of organ based on the principles of morality. We believe that human lives have intrinsic value and should not be degraded by means of their commodification.
Ceteris paribus, what would be the main motivation behind one's reason for the sale of one's organs? Was it because of one's own desire towards the preservation of precious life. Iran is the only country in the whole world that allows the sales of organ. The procurement and sales of organ through the government was touted as having no financial gain but the donors will be compensated for the loss of income during the period of recuperation. Donors also enjoy government health subsidies which is much sought for in a country as poor as Iran. On top of that there are also the element of gift which is based on the concept of 'ikhlas' or as one's willing. The so called gifts which is privately arranged is made between the donors and the buyer. If were to study the Iranian model of organ 'sharing' it seems clear and evident that poverty remains the chief motivating factor behind the sales. The existence of such financial duress in the procurement of organs as commodities from the poor communities is a travesty of distributive justice
However having argued that, should society and governments play the role of a moral guardian and condemn a man to death purely to uphold the principle of morality. This is what the law that prohibits the sales of organs is doing to many people. Kidney patients have to suffer the agonizing experience of the dialysis daily just to keep themselves alive for years just because the wait for suitable donor long.
Many argues that a human body and its part should not be allowed to be bought, sold or traded. Allowing the trade of organ will only benefit a section of the community, the rich as unfortunately showned in the recent case and is out to exploit the poor. The poor will not be able to jump into the band wagon of benefiting themselves from the sales and purchase as they, logically do not possess the economic ability to do so.
Yes, if one were to put forth the above as an argument against the sales and purchase of human organ, these are good arguments. But however against those arguments the underlying facts remained that lives that could have been saved by the sale were not saved because of morality, principle and law. Is the law by itself draconian?
Every day, three people in Singapore lose the use of their kidneys but just only one cadaveric kidney becomes available every week. That would mean that 20 people were added into the existing list of hopeful recipients and only one of them went through the transplant each week. Multiply that by months, we have 80 new patients each month and by the end of the year 960 patients, of which only 48 of them will receive a new kidney from donors. What of the other 9 12 patients?
What are the options available to them? Wait for their turn and to go on dialysis or remain hopeful that a close relatives came forth to willingly donate their kidney before their time runs out, or, go overseas and try to get a kidney on the black market. More than 300 Singaporeans have done just that. Yest they may have broken the law but the starking fact remains that they are still alive to face the music.
It is well established that both the quality of life and the survival rate are far greater for those who receive transplants compared to those who are on dialysis. Wouldn't it be better to introduce a system where organ trade system exists in a manner that protects the interest and well-being of the donor.
In retrospect, by allowing the able to purchase kidneys direct from donors, this will increase the life savings organs available for transplant. The rich that buy the organ can automatically be taken off the waiting list for a cadaveric organ. A shorter waiting list would translate into a better survival real those in need transplants.
The sellers would benefit financially. For many, the sale might lead to a better life for his or her family. However there are still those who argued that the argument that money received helps the seller-donor rise above his poverty is gravely flawed. It must be the duty of a civilized society to ensure that none of its citizens is in such a dire state of poverty that the poor have to be reduced to selling themselves piecemeal for survival.
Should society stop the sale of organ, or should the decision be left to the individual sellers? Those who speak against the sales themselves are not in need of an organ themselves. But if you are one of those small percentage that are in dire need of the organ or are has someone close who suffers from organ failure, I am certain that you may not be so quick to deplore the act.
In every society, there is a situation where change may not necessarily be easily acceptable. When Singapore first ban of smoking in public places, many have spoken up against it condemning the ban as an infringement to individual rights. Now that many other countries have seen light and benefit behind it, they themselves have adopted and implemented the ban in their own country. Who knows perhaps Singapore can take the lead in studying and implementing a system which permits the sales of organ that would strike a balance between individual needs and societal principal.
1 comment:
Hey there, we at University of Califonria at San francisco would like to use your organ transplant image, we can credit it to: Hasrul's blog or any way you'd like. OK?
Post a Comment