Kidney transplant is a procedure that rose as the choice of treatment for end-stage renal illness. There has been a sharp increase in the recent decade of the demand for transplants hinged on various reasons such as an aging population, enhanced techniques of transplants together with better drugs for immunosuppression. However, the sale of the kidney is illegal as the EU and the UN condemn it. Payment would result in a high number of donors. The market’s opponent’s claim that payment could lower the number of organs needed as it would discourage those that would willingly donate their organs. In this paper, I will argue that Malmqvist’s argument that kidney sales ban is not justifiably paternalistic holds. It’s based on the fact that principled anti-paternalistic should not reject the ban as it is not hard paternalism. The study notes that the Malmqvist argument holds that the rationale of the ban is what Alan Wertheimer, together with Franklin Miller, refers to as group soft paternalism.
Most notably, the policies of the group soft paternalist usually limit the autonomous individual’s freedom as an unavoidable conseqhttps://sharksavewriters.com/difficulties-related-to-donation-of-human-organ/uence to seek the protection from harm of other non-autonomous individuals that have not chosen it voluntarily. In essence, it is not for their own good. According to Stewart Cameron, together with Raymond Hoffenberg sentiments, the denial of the opportunity of donating an organ for money is an autonomy denial for the unfortunate individuals deprived of the capacity to make decisions on what is best for themselves as well as their family (Malmqvist, 2020). Moreover, Julian Savulescu claims that if people are permitted to sell their labor, the same should apply to the means of that labor. Besides, he further notes that if people are allowed to risk damaging their bodies for pleasure such as smoking, the same should be applied to money as it will seek to realize other goods in life (Malmqvist, 2020). Therefore, he states that a ban in the organ market is constraining what individuals can do with their organs and their lives. In this case, the authors propose that the prohibition of kidney sales usually imposes a paternalistic limitation, which is objectionable on the choices that would-be vendors can make. Hence, it is unjustifiable as it prevents their freedom for realizing any good.
In essence, the actions together with policies that limit the freedom of people could impact their welfare positively without being the basis for invoking their justification. For instance, a law that limits smoking in bars usually restricts the freedom of customers that smoke. However, it benefits them in that it helps them to smoke fewer cigarettes. In this case, the law is not paternalistic, where it seeks the protection of employees that are non-smokers rather than smoking customers. Soft paternalism interferes with significant non-autonomous conduct. However, hard paternalism interferes with crucial independent conduct. Certain soft paternalistic restrictions safeguard people that are assumed on the whole not to possess the capacity of the autonomous making of decisions. It is crucial to note that interventions that are hard paternalistic tend to limit the liberty of substantially independent individuals to safeguard them from their voluntary choices. For instance, where a Jehovah’s Witness is compelled to receive against their will, a life-saving transfusion of blood.
On the other hand, hard paternalism is regarded as more difficult in justifying in contrast to soft paternalism. It hinges on the notion that respect for autonomy is seen as of paramount significance as hard paternalism deals with a violation of independence. However, soft paternalism also presents its challenges. Interference could be frustrating despite targeting non-autonomous behavior as well as necessitating justification for numerous reasons. Anti-paternalists argue that a ban on kidney sales is to safeguard the welfare of would-be vendors. However, the harm appears to be to others and not the vendors. Notably, it is highly unlikely that the transplants recipients’ would suffer harm, mainly where sales raise the supply of kidneys. On the flip side, the majority of vendors would gain from transplant, which otherwise they wouldn’t access.
Notwithstanding, the recipients would be harmed where sales that are permitted undermined generous donation to the point that fewer instead of more kidneys are availed. Thus, it would reduce rather than heighten their chances of obtaining one. Besides, recipients could also be harmed where organs are of low quality instead of donated kidneys.
Notably, the prohibition of the sale of kidneys is not paternalistic, where the intention is to limit any third party harm. The choice of selling an organ is non-autonomous as it appears that numerous vendors of the kidney would adhere to the standard autonomous agency criteria. Besides, some vendors could fail to comprehend the impacts of the sales, which the supply of information could help in providing a remedy. Others could desperately require cash to the point that they lack any other choice than selling a kidney. It appears that an individual could consent to a medical treatment that is life-saving where the alternative is death. Also, others could not require money, but due to a large amount of cash offered could present a choice that is difficult to refuse.
Most importantly, where vendors face no risk, the prohibition of kidney sales would fail to either be paternalistic. Similar to other surgeries, a nephrectomy bears a certain level of risk. Nonetheless, these risks seem to be low in circumstances deemed as favorable. Kidney sales advocates argue that the threat posed is not sufficient for a ban on kidney sales pegged on the paternalistic basis.