In this essay, I would like to dispute on China’s organ harvesting implementation system that recently flared a debate, comparing it to UK’s controversial Opt Out System, in terms of which will be a more sustainable and favourable system.
Well, in the US alone, 116,000+ number of men, women and children are on the national transplant waiting list as of August 2017’ (DLA Donor Designation Report, 31/3/16) With 20 people dying each day from the scarcity of organs available to the patients, many would agree there’s an immediate need to address this crisis.
New era for Organ Donation & Transplantation says WHO, China has been establishing a new national system that can potentially be extremely beneficial to human lives. This practice began back in 2006, where Organs were extracted from Death row inmates along with this religious group that has been opposing against the government better known as Falun Gong. Many were very much against this procedure conducted by China. However you can’t deny the cold hard statistics that it has allowed China to save many lives, with 13,000 transplants in 2004 and up to 20,000 in 2006 as stated by Wikipedia.
First, let us consider an argument in support of Human Organs Debate with Callum Tipple, undergraduate of Oxford University in Bachelor of Arts who also worked at the International Policy Group and The Oxford Union, along with many other reputable attributes. Advocating for the Oxford Union on the 4th of December 2015 that ‘lives are a higher priority than ideology and donation are simply not enough.’ (Tipple, 2015) He begins a point that ‘Voluntary free donation this is the system that we champion’. His main arguments were that Voluntary Donation is inadequate to the high levels of demand for organs. Additionally, black markets owns 20% of the organs transplanted according to WHO, whereby high levels of risk of HIV are usually transmitted to the recipient after they have bought the organ. This is such a horrifying system, true, donors will then receive monetary benefits. However vast money goes back to the intermediaries rather than the donor. He also speaks of the implementation of black market as an organ donation system, however this is not relevant for our topic. Moving on, one of the evidence mentioned was by the Economist which suggested that if 0.06% of Americans donated their organs, the entire waiting list would disappear.
Why not maintain the same moral organ donation that we currently champion? Focus on motivating citizens to be an organ donor! Sigrid Fry-Revere, Founder and President of the Center for Ethical Solutions, will be discussing on organ transplantation policy on TedMed, which corroborates our previous statement of insufficient organs, stating that ‘The world average organ donation is about 4 organs available for every 100 patients, and of those people, 90% needs a kidney.’ Further adding that ‘even if everyone agrees to becomes an organ donor when they die there’s still shortages’. Why? She further mentions that ‘over 99% of those people who die are too ill, too injured or never made it in time to the hospital for their organs to be of any use’. (Fry-Revere, 2015) These statements lead us back to this Justice System in which I am speaking of today, with prisoners imprisoned in cells. Immediate medical experts can reach them to perform the surgery, immediately raising the amount of organs that can be used to supply terminal organ failures patient and they still get monetary benefits to compensate for their wrong doings that can be given back to their families at home.
Furthermore, many articles have stated the apparent risk with the current system for instance, ‘The Body as Commodity: The Use of Markets to Cure Organ Deficit’ by David E. Jefferies. (Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Spring 1998), pp. 621-658), which states ‘Debate has long swirled around the question of what rights, if any, persons have to dispose of their bodies and body parts. The recognition or creation of such rights, could lead to ethical dilemmas. For example, if disposal rights are created or recognised, bodies and their parts may become commercialised, thereby resulting in human rights violation. A gross manifestation of this problem arose in early nineteenth century England.’ It was said that the use of cadavers for the learning of anatomy led to the ‘body snatching’ incident, William Burke murdered 16 of his guests to be sold to medical schools, similarly this can be applied to the current Organ Transplantation system. Organs are currently inadequate to the demand, and ‘various system have been proposed to increase the supply of organs and solve this shortage. All implemented thus far have a similar element: they have all failed.’ ‘Although “body snatching” scandals are no longer prevalent, the value of the human body nevertheless creates the danger of the development of black markets.’ This is where our next question lies, ‘to what lengths might a desperately ill person be willing to go to obtain a body part that might dramatically improve the quality of such person’s life or even literally save it?’. Now this might be a little improbable, however black market still exists to exploit the innocent and vulnerable, hence where there is a market, they will find a way and as indicated in this study due to the high cost of an organ, turning to the black market for a fast and affordable organ. However organs procured from Black Markets, of course is highly unethical and lacks quality to sustain lives for a long period to ameliorate this crime and seek for a solution in which endangered lives are further prioritised.
One argument against the use of death row prisoners is ‘transmission of infectious diseases is a great risk if prisoners donate’ due to the unhygienic environment an inmate face in prison. However the research report (‘Prisoners on Death Row Should Be Accepted as Organ Donors’ by Shu S. Lin, MD, PhD, Lauren Rich, RN, BSN, Jay D. Pal, MD, PhD, and Robert M. Sade, MD) would say otherwise, that ‘there would be more time for screening death row inmates than typical brain-dead donors in hospitals. Thus, the rate of disease transmission might actually be lower when death row inmates donate because of the possibility of more thorough screening processes.’
Now the next arguments would be that there is a Stigma against receiving organs will also be present, creating a bigger taboo for the country. However, in spite of that claims going back to the research report on (‘Prisoners on Death Row Should Be Accepted as Organ Donors’ by Shu S. Lin, MD, PhD, Lauren Rich, RN, BSN, Jay D. Pal, MD, PhD, and Robert M. Sade, MD) The researcher did a survey with the public and potential transplant recipients, MSNBC news organization found that 77.3% of 86,736 subjects responded “yes” to the question, “Should death row inmates be allowed to donate their organs?” and along with that they posed a hypothetical question saying, “If we knew a donor was disease-free and their lungs were in good condition, would you be willing to accept lungs from a death-row inmate?” Twelve (75%) responded “yes” and 4 responded “no.” One individual who replied “yes” commented that this is an acceptable practice “even if just one person was helped.” One negative responder stated that the response would have been “yes” in case of greater recipient instability. Thus, there is agreement, even among those who are actually on the “receiving” end of the debate, that condemned prisoners are indeed acceptable donors for organ transplantation.’
Many have argued that prison organ harvest is highly unethical and thus far I have yet to truly commend why this system is the way to go. (‘Let’s Harvest the Organs of Death Row Inmates’ by Graeme Wood) will be the first article we uphold with an Utilitarian mind in support of the system, whilst comparing it to current Justice System for Death Row Prisoners. It begins, ‘If this sounds inhumane, compare it to current practices: botched hangings, painfully long gassings, and messy electrocutions.’ whereas removal of heart or lungs with anesthesia instead kills without any form of pain and still provides solution to patients with terminal organ failure. However, thus far organs remain with prisoners as they were executed, when innocent souls are dying for that criminal’s purposeful organs. ‘Two died waiting for his kidneys, and two more suffocated for lack of his lungs. The liver, split two ways, could have saved two babies. Take the hair, bone, skin, ligaments, and fluids for grafts and transfusions, and all that's left of the donor's body could be shuffled off into a very petite coffin indeed. The inmate could allow nearly a dozen people to live, in exchange for a body he wouldn't be around to enjoy anyway. Hence ‘the math says we should encourage death-row organ donation.’
But then of course, this progress us to the other side of the coin, does Death Row Prisoners lose all of their human rights once they are admitted to a life sentence in jail? Along with that, what are the health implications that comes with being a living organ donor? Let’s move on to our next article that dispute against our previous statement by (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services on ‘The Ethics of Organ Donation from Condemned Prisoners’), agreeing that this form of execution would make sense in an Utilitarian standpoint. However, ‘the cross-clamping the aorta and the ensuing cardiectomy, followed by the disconnection of the ventilator, create an unacceptable situation for the organ recovery team. It clearly places the organ recovery team in the role of executioner. Many physician groups, including the American Medical Association, have prohibited physician participation in state executions on ethical grounds.’ Further stating that, consent cannot be assumed as Informed Consent is part of one’s human rights, or else this system would be the same as Nazi’s refugee camps, mass censorship and persecution.
Alongside that there are other systems that has taken its toll to successfully increasing an exceptional amount of organs for the country like the United Kingdom’s opt out system. More than 50,000 people now alive thanks to organ donation and transplant states (NHS Organ Donation UK). The number of people currently known to be alive thanks to organ transplants has broken 50,000 for the first time. This increase is revealed in this year’s UK Transplant Activity Report 2016/17, published today by NHS Blood and Transplant. There are now 50,300 people alive today thanks to organ transplants – more than enough to fill Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge and almost enough to fill Liverpool’s Anfield stadium. This then leads us to question, perhaps, there are other alternatives that could be more ethical and sustainable to increase organ shortages and save lives. England could introduce the so-called presumed consent system of organ donation in which people have to actively opt out if they do not wish to be donors, Downing Street has said. Wales introduced the system in December 2015, and saw an immediate rise in the availability of organs to help seriously ill patients further mentions The Guardian. Which then brings us back to NHS Statistics of 36,300 Kidney transplants, 1,900 Pancreas transplants, 3,900 Cardiothoracic (heart or lung or combined heart/lung) transplants – 3,900 people and more!
In terms of the long run, the opt out system should definitely be implemented as shown by the statistics it has saved a staggering of 50,000 people in the UK, the only drawback is that the resolution tends to take a long period of time before it can be passed. Thus, prison organ harvest in my opinion should be considered as a short term solution. Compared to other execution in prisons, this is by far a much better solution for death row inmates which at the same time mitigate the inadequate supply of organs for the short term solution. Notwithstanding the evidence, the essay is indeed limited to truly advocate the best solution, hence if I had more time I’d perhaps look further into different countries and their objectives. What they abide by, before concluding my final statement on ‘Prisoners for Organ Transplantation vs Opt Out System.