This article by Alexander Tabarrok comes as a reaction to the increasing number of deaths as result of organ shortage. According to the article there is a huge shortage of organs and it has resulted in many deaths which could have been prevented if people could agree to donate their organs to others who are in need. According to Tabbarok, 60,000 people die every year due to organ shortage; it is only 10,000 people who are willing to give their organs to others. It is therefore clear that a whopping 50, 000 die due to lack of organs (Tabarrok, 2002, p.1). As a result of this development therefore, Tabarrok gives a suggestion of solution problem of organ shortage by proposing the moral solution. Organs should be given on give and take basis, whereby anybody who is willing to give their organs will receive from other in case they will require one for themselves.
Upon further scrutiny, organ donation is an act of willingness where those who are willing to donate their organs when they pass away do so without having to be coerced or influenced to do so. Organ donation in itself raises a lot moral questions, since for one to give an organ it means they have to be dead already. The article gives a summary of the basis under which organ donation should be done but the remedy looks like it’s is a step closer to making organs commodities of trade in the market. In real sense, laws of many countries discourage the sale and acquisition of organs under the market forces of demand and supply (Tabarrok, 2002, p.1). The argument behind the legal stance taken by many countries against organ trade is purely due to their cultural construct of the setting.
The give and take scenario suggested in this case will mean that organs will only be given to those who are in need of it on the condition that they themselves are the donors. The signing of the donation document is supposed to be an act of willingness from the person concerned. Signing an agreement to donate an organ will act as insurance for one to be an automatic recipient (Nadell, 2008, p.511). Initially, recipient of organs was not dependent upon one’s willingness to donate or not. The new suggestion will deny organ transplant to those who are in need of organs and yet they have not signed donor form.
The formal logic behind this article is that the writer uses facts to appeal to moral sense. The fact that there are a large number of people dying every year due to lack of organs as a result of another person’s mistake of not signing donor form trickles down the issue of morals. If people can sign donor forms and allow others use their organs upon their death, or simply allow their organs to be harvested upon their deaths serves moral right to live (Tabarrok, 2002, p.1). As a matter of fact, the writer notes the fact that people die every year with all their organs intact. Those who would have lived longer through the donation die as well because they lack someone to donate organs to them. the two scenarios of deaths presents the basis of moral questioning, where one will question the need for one to die of natural course with well-functioning organs and at the same time deny others live by refusing to sign the donor form.It makes a lot of sense to save someone’s life through an act of signing a donor form alone and it will go a long way in saving another person’s life whom in principle is not privy to the donor or may be privy. Initially, organ donors were encouraged to donate their organs by being given an expensive send off, this is to say, organ donors’ funeral expenses were being fully footed by the organ donors association so as to encourage other to take the course of organ donation. The technique of coercing through paying money to the donors so as to encourage donors to donate their organs was not effective as well. This array of facts that are given by the writer of this article clearly explains the need to have a totally different technique all together to coerce people to be donors (Tabarrok, 2002, p.1). The suggestion given of ‘no give-no take’ looks more of a choice than a force where both probable donors are probable recipients.
In as far as organ donation is concerned, I totally agree with the writer of the article on the fact that organs should and must not be attached value. In this case organs should be given for free to deserving and needing parties. The principle of ‘no give-no take’ upon which the argument of the article is built on, demonstrates the need to remove the organs as commodities of trade in the market where the forces of demand and supply will dictate the prices of the organs (Nadell, 2007, p.1). If organs are allowed to be commodities in the marketit will not only raise a lot of moral issues but it will also drive organs out of reach from those who are poor and cannot afford the organs yet they are deserving parties.
On the moral issue, ‘no give-no take’ principle absolves the issue of questioning the moral stands behind the decision to trade on organs. Secondly, the principle absolves the issue inequality that is brought about by social classes, there are some things that some social classes deny other classes because they can afford, the principle therefore removes organs from the list of items under which it will be within social class domain rather it will be available for everybody regardless of social class context and this makes a lot of sense because everybody is endowed with organs (Green, 2007, p. 12). The only need that one has to fulfill in order to be recipients is to be donors.
In summary, organ donation has been and it better remains to be a non-economic commodity. The ‘no give-no take’ principle cuts across moral and economic stance on equal measure serving each with a required recipe. The writer uses coercive appeal throughout the article where he notes the need for one’s willingness to donate a solution to over 50,000 deaths that happen annually.