The lure and pursuit of money have, in many situations, proved to be the driving force behind many changes and manipulations made in society. Today even the purest of good-hearted actions can be tainted by the desire for money. Reporter Andrew Chung, in his article titled \"Who Owns Your Body\" shows us the unfortunate truth that the once considered selfless act of saving lives- donating organs, may now be suffering the same fate; and in considering the standpoints of ethicists, theists and the common mans common sense regarding the criminal and un-ethical problems this ordeal would burden society with, giving away our organs for money only proves to be a preposterous idea.
The act of ...view middle of the document...
To love another human being (who in most cases is a complete stranger to the donner) enough to selflessly give them an essential part of ones own body is the perfect example of this virtue in action.
Donating organs is without a doubt an absolute positive act, but with the simple addition of money that \"good deed\" turns into nothing but an un-ethical and crime infested market. One may argue in saying that if donating organs turned into a commercial transaction, long waiting lists for transplants would be cut in half- while they remain completely oblivious to the fact that a market like this is only bound to be run by exploitation. In this article Andrew Chung re-caps Amit Kumars story, a man \"who is accused of harvesting kidneys from hundreds of poor unwilling Indians.\" In this case, money proved successful in being able to lead a doctor into criminal action. Of course this man went farther than even the most money hungry citizens a community may know, but Amit Kumar serves as proof that exploitation and corruption in the organs market exists- and only takes one equally corrupt person. The poor, however, are the primary targets of this corruption, bringing down not only themselves but society as well. Biomedical ethics professor Leigh Turner brings up to valid points regarding the matter by stating that \"If a decision is un-coerced, you should be in a position where you can make the choice and live with the consequences...but once you add poverty and real inequality to the mix, suddenly choice and autonomy starts to look a lot murkier.\" When a easy money-making opportunity arises, the poor are the first to consider it. To offer these people with the choice of being able to make money without having to be productive in society by getting a job is a fault on its own part, and in the end results in being harmful to the poor and to the community itself.
Regardless of the criminal and unjust acts this potential situation may bring about, it ultimately comes down to the fact that if a society decides that they want...
