Charles Krauthammer’s article “Yes Lets Pay for Organs” appeared in Time Magazine on May 17, 1999. Krauthammer disputes paying for organs that come from the dead is fine, but buying organs from the living is degrading. This controversial subject, buying organs from live people, not only violates federal laws but lowers a person’s self- image of human dignity. Even though there is a huge organ shortage throughout the United States, that does not make it right for people to sell parts of themselves for money. Will the rich be tempted to sale their organs for an extra three hundred dollars? Of course not, it is the poor who will be made a commodity of organ selling, not the rich. If paying money for organs helps replenish the supply for people who need them, so be it.
One state that agrees with the following idea is Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania plans to begin paying the relatives of organ donors three hundred dollars, to help ease funeral expenses. Even though this sounds great, rewarding organ donations violates a federal law made in 1984. This federal law states that organs are a national resource, not objects that are taken out of you when you die. Due to this law, and the controversy of pricing organs, the demand needed to expand the supply has increased.
According to Krauthammer’s article, there are Sixty-two thousand Americans desperately awaiting an organ transplant. However because of the increased demand for organs, there are hardly enough to go around. Paying money for organs seems like a great solution in alleviating the problem, but the author thought it was kind of odd that no one had offered money for organs. If paying money is what it takes in order to increase the supply and save lives, then lets do it.
The Essay on Constitutionalism Law State Legal
Salus populi suprema lex (The welfare of the people is the supreme law). Although the intention behind this term is the good of the people, it has been time and again used by the perpetrators of power for justifying their unconstitutional and illegitimate actions and laws. The concept of constitutionalism is the doctrine which governs the legitimacy of government action. A power may be exercised ...
Unfortunately there are a few major drawbacks toward assessing this situation. For example Pennsylvania’s idea, about rewarding money for organs, will greatly affect the poor. A three hundred-dollar reward will not be enough money for a rich person to donate his/her organs. Primarily lower class people will take advantage of this situation, because they are in need for money. In addition the poor will not only benefit from this situation, but everyone else will too. Simply because every time someone donates an organ, it increases the supple for everyone.
Krauthammer also talks about how increasing the organ supply will dangerously affect the poor. He says that even in their every day lives they are exposed to something dangerous. From slum homes to their hazardous jobs, there is always going to be some sort of danger in the lives of the poor. Even though the poor may have it rough, the real objective of the Pennsylvania program is to cross the line of paying for organs. Until the Pennsylvania program, Americans have always felt that it is wrong to pay for human organs. In doing so, the human body and life would be turned into a commodity. First we will start by paying for relatives’ dead kidneys, then we will be paying money for the spare kidney from some guy off the street.
Krauthammer does not see a problem with people selling their kidneys. If a person needs more money, why not sell a kidney? For instance, a struggling mother might need the extra money to put her kids through college. So why should she not sell a kidney? She should not sell her kidney because of a little thing called human dignity. A poor lady could sale herself into slavery, just to send her kids to college. Fortunately our society draws the line there and says no. We have a free society, but freedom only lasts as long as it is not violated. Today’s free society will not allow live kidneys to be sold at market, because it would violate our freedom in the sense of not being referred to as a commodity. If everyone referred to himself or herself as an object, then we would not have morals.
The Essay on Money in Your Life
Our world is primarily based around money. How you view the money in your life affects your lifestyle, what you will do with that money and how you will supervise it. Making sure you are given the tools and knowledge as to manage your money will help you to manage your whole life and make better decisions. Interviewing my mom has taught me the different ways that money can impact your life. How ...
Would taking organs from the dead violate human morality? To Violate human life in such a way as to chop up and serve human body parts, would make a commodity out of life itself. However, even though the dead is very much respected, the body of a dead person is an object. It is not referred to as a person with a living soul, so why not strip mine the body. Its parts could be used to help people out with the organ shortage. The Pennsylvania program may be trying to help with the organ shortage, but why not pay the relatives of the deceit directly? Instead they go and give the money to a third party, the funeral homes. I feel this is an excellent idea because if you were to give the money to the relatives directly, there are a number of things that could happen to the money. For example: greed, family disputes, theft, or even thoughtless wasting of the money could occur if it were put into the wrong hands.
Another good observation Krauthammer proposed in his article was the objection of the Pennsylvania plan. He observes that rewarding money for organ donations would disproportionately affect the poor. I totally agree with the author’s idea, because the poor are more in need for money than the rich are. A three hundred dollars reward is not enough money to motivate rich people into donating their organs, but it will definitely motivate the poor. Paying for organs may also lead to the theft of other organs, because of the money they are worth. Why would a rich person steal organs? The poor are more venerable to the Pennsylvania program than the poor.
I do not agree with Krauthammer’s opinion about the Pennsylvania program affecting the poor. He told the reader not to be concerned with exploiting the poor. Charles also gave crude examples of how the poor are already exploited. Who cares if the unfortunate lives in slum houses or drive small cars, does that give anybody more of a reason to exploit the more? Krauthammer should have assessed the exploitation of the poor subject with a little more sensitivity. When I read this part it made me form a bad opinion about the author.
The Essay on Basic Anatomy Of The Human Body
Describe the basic anatomy of the human body affected by assisting and moving The human body is only able to assume it’s different posture and maintain its structure due to the skeletal system. The skeletal system is made up of bones which have an outer hard cortical layer and an inner soft trabecular layer made of cancellous bone. Within some long bone is the all important marrow from where ...
Since I value myself, I have resolved to never sale or donate any part of my body until I am dead. I believe that by selling our organs, we lower our self-image of human dignity. This is why we must not make a commodity of out organs, and value them while we still have them. Human Morality interfaces the bartering of mortal organs, which in my sentiment is a good thing for the human race. Without laws or boundaries, people in society would be cutting each other up for their organs. I could not picture anything as degrading as that.
