The Issue of the Legalisation of Organ Trade: Singapore

This commentary refers to the article below:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/360088/1/.html

Organ trade remains an open question among many in Singapore, especially after the controversy over Tang Wee Sung, the first Singaporean charged with trying to buy a kidney. Many have argued using economic and social issues, stating how such an act may lead to a "slippery slope" or how the poor may be exploited. But I believe underlying the many factors and justifications that people have for or against organ trade is the crux of entire issue, the sanctity of human life.

Much can be argued regarding whether human life stands to gain or not should organ trade be legalised, however one of the most obvious reasons for organ trade would be that hundreds of lives could potentially be saved. According to the National Kidney Foundation's website, the number of patients waiting for a kidney transplant in 2003 was 673, 20% more than in 1998. Also, in 2005 there were 625 individuals who were on the waiting list for a cadaver renal transplant, and the average waiting time for such a transplant is 7 years. Since most of these patients do not have the financial means or physical strength to last 7 years of special medication or treatment, organ trade presents to them an immensely huge solution to their problems. If the government or charity organizations could aid and facilitate the transactions, a legal organ trade system may solve organ shortage problems in a small period of time. Besides, the monetary benefits involved in the trading of organs would undoubtedly lure more organ donors, increasing the supply of organs beyond the demand. Hence the legalising of organ trade should be highly ranked as a solution to the organ demands.

However much of the debate inevitably swings against organ trade, as it seems as though other people have to be "sacrificed" in order to save those lives. Even though the organ "donor" or "seller" would be paid by either the government or the receipient, it is hard not to consider the health detriments brought upon the donor. One may link organ trade to an act like prostitution, where though it may be a legal and legitimate way of earning money, it is not looked upon as a decent or moral thing to do. Making one's body a commodity seems to reject the view that the human body has value, and is sacred. Would it be morally right to deal irreversible harm to one's body in exchange for money? Perhaps, if the money definitely allows the person to survive a few more months. However surveys done in India by the British Medical Journal prove that organ trade does not remove people's poverty, and instead "people sell kidneys to pay off debts, but then average family incomes decline by more than a third, more live below the poverty line and 86 per cent report deterioration in their health." With serious consequences of organ trade already happening, surely we cannot allow for fellow humans to further degrade themselves and fall further into the pits of poverty and low moral standards.

In conclusion, I still hold the idealistic belief that humanity should be upheld above all else, especially since this debate revolves so much around it. In the past, we have said 'why not' to industrialisation, thinking it could solve many of our problems. However we had failed to realise we would go overboard, escalating climate change to a point where it is irreversible. I believe such an argument should be presented in the organ trade debate. The slippery slope arguments, where there would be a huge divide between the rich and the supposedly exploited poor, would then have to be looked upon as a reality, and not merely as assumptions or speculation, simply because it has already happened in many other aspects. What more harm must be done before people recognise the folly of their actions?