Body Ownership and Government Interference

Laws created by the government that dictates how a person may or may not use their body raises serious moral and philosophical questions about body ownership and the human body as property. The debate has been exacerbated by the question of whether or not a for-profit market of organ donation is morally justifiable, but the issue stems from a larger concern over our bodies as personal property and the governing body, in this case, the United States Government, which undermines our autonomy by implementing restrictions on how we use our bodies. The current debate over the potential for a commercial organ-donor market is a useful and relevant lens through which we can evaluate the government’s control over how we understand body ownership.

The popular opinion among government and health care agencies (often backed by the government) is that it is morally wrong to allow for a for-profit market of organ donations, which, they believe, will undermine the altruism of the current systems of donation and the positive psychological dimensions involved in life-saving abilities that do not involve a monetary incentive. The basis for the argument against for-profit organ donation is a solid one and worth considering, but the question must always remain, should governments have the authority to tell us what we can and cannot do with our bodies? And, are laws against for-profit sale of human organs simply part of a political agenda that adheres to deep-rooted religious beliefs about the body that may cause initial public outcry?

If the concern over religious and moral rejection of selling human organs to those in need of a transplant isn’t a political concern for government officials, it certainly should be. Most conservative Americans would probably jump to this first offense against the Christian belief in the divine unity of body and soul. But as is true with so many social issues up for debate, it cannot be denied that a typical conservative American would argue that government regulation over the use of our bodies is a misuse of government authority. When we move closer to the political center, i.e. from a libertarian perspective, often a “live and let live” approach to government, the rejection of government control over organ donation is perhaps more so an issue of infringement upon our freedom. Finally, when we move further left on the political spectrum, the controversy becomes one about equality. Is it morally justifiable to create a market in which the poor may be susceptible to organ donation based on a financial needs basis? Furthermore, the rift between the rich and poor may become more glaring as recipients who are able to pay for organ donation can purchase the needed transplant based on wealth rather than the current system that assesses donations based on the severity of medical need, often a life or death situation.

As Mark J. Cherry notes in his book, Persons and Their Bodies: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Sale of Organs, the current debate either for or against a for-profit market in human organs is “nested within moral institutions, ontological or political theoretical premises, or understandings of special moral concerns, such a permissible use of the body and its parts, which have a long history of analysis” (1). Clearly the debate goes far beyond the political interests mentioned above, but, as we know, it is ultimately politics that dictate government policy. Still, it is important to review the popular rejections of a market for human organs based on “a number of conceptually independent philosophical concerns” that Cherry identifies in the following way: “(1) What is the appropriate understanding of the relationship between persons and their bodies? (2) What does it mean to “own” an organ? (3) Do governments have moral authority to regulate how persons use their own body parts? (4) What are the costs and benefits of a market in human organs?” (Cherry 1). All of these factors have an importance on our understanding of government interference with the use of our bodies, the significance of which cannot be understated. While the focus of this essay is to draw attention to government control of our bodies in any way, this question of an organ market is paramount to understanding the implications of such regulation, particularly in the current context of urgency created by the fact that there are simply not enough organs available for life-saving transplant surgeries.

While there is glaring statistical data showing that a serious discrepancy between the necessary donations of life-saving organ transplant exists, still even the option of a potential market to alleviate the shortage has been greeted with outrage. Despite the obvious life-saving advantages to such a market, “a for-profit commercial market in human organs is often denounced as inappropriately commodifying the human body” (Cherry 3). Furthermore, Cherry writes that it has been claimed that, “Selling human organs for a profit is held to be exploitative and degrading, morally analogous to slavery, as well as incompatible with basic human values, such as human dignity, and important social goals, such as equality and a spirit of altruism” (Cherry 3-4). And, finally, Cherry notes, “the human body, it is argued, should not be treated as property” (4). It is this final statement that hypocrisy rears its ugly head. If the human body should not be treated as property, why is it acceptable that the government consider its citizens as such? When the government tells us what we can or cannot do without bodies, isn’t that establishing a sense of property? The only difference is in this case, the government has proved by its regulations that not only is the human body indeed “property,” but that we as individuals are not the sole proprietors of our bodies; the government, in a sense, strives to owns us too.

Commodification of the human body is not a new concept or concern. Every day when we go to work, we are commodified by our output. Even when we exercise our basic freedoms like voting, we are counted as numbers--certainly a commodity. The concept of an individual as property isn’t new either; it is simply being re-introduced into the lexicon of the organ donor debate to discourage a system that that government fears is too complicated to control. Of course, humans are property. We claim our children on our taxes; we become legally bound to our partners in marriage; we have the have the right to sue for bodily and even emotional harm. This also leads to other biological property rights issues, such as sperm and egg donation for fertility purposes.

A problem seems to stem from the ambiguity over personal property laws when it comes to our bodies. In Bioequity: Property and the Human Body, by Nils Hoppe, this issue is highlighted in regard to law in Great Britain, however it is also relevant to policies and legal proceedings in the United States. Hoppe writes of the persistence of the question of whether or not theft of biological property should be a criminal offense, to which he remarks, “the law says no, in most cases, maybe in some cases, and yes in very few cases” (13). The dilemma over the human body and biological material, including organs, continues to be shrouded in issues related to both law and medical ethics. Often courts have called in “ethical experts” to assist in determining appropriate action in issues of body as property in health care cases.

The United States Institute of Medicine published a text entitled Society’s Choices: Social and Ethical Decision Making in Biomedicine which surveys “ethical issues in the life sciences [that] has becomes a public concern, debated in the press and, increasingly, guided by governmental commissions, professional societies, and community organizations” (27). These issues, the authors note, are becoming more of a public concern as “health care and commercialization of biotechnology are being pursued” (27). While the text does not specifically discuss the commercialization of organ donation, there is no difference here in the definition of “ethical issues” that arise when we talk about body ownership, from the scope of the entire person, a single organ, or even microscopic biological material. It seems the US Institute of medicine is trying to justify the rhetoric that has often found itself caught up in legal cases related to such issues of body ownership and healthcare.

Arthur L. Caplan has written very candidly about his own involvement in serving as an “moral expert” in legal proceedings in his book, If I Were A Rich Man Could I Buy A Pancreas? And Other Essays On The Ethics Of Health Care. Caplan admits that he is uneasy with the idea of a so called moral expert influencing legal doctrine; in fact he wonders if there is even such a thing as a moral expert, or if this is simply a ploy to ease tensions or bolster arguments to regulate the healthcare industry in regards to tough debates, of which the organ donor situation certainly qualifies. Caplan asks. “ Is it appropriate for any philosopher under any circumstances to claim to be a moral expert? Should legislatures, courts, and other institutions of society seek out those with alleged with moral theory and expertise, or are such efforts incompatible with personal responsibility for one’s actions and behavior as well as with any theory of democracy?” (20). These questions are powerful and intended to be rhetorical, not just because Caplan ends his discussion here, but also because the answers to these questions would likely enter dangerous territory where blame can be placed on various organizations mentioned by the US Institute of medicine, and the institute itself, that use this tactic to fool people into feeling bad if they do not agree with a moral expert. What may seem as the high road, is actually, upon examination, simply the easy way out and a method of control camouflaged by political agendas and fancy rhetoric.

Government agencies and affiliates have expressed extreme concern and caution over the potential for an organ donor market, which has been suggested in response to the serious lack of available organ donors for those who desperately need transplants to save their lives. Health organizations including the World Medical Association, UNESCO, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Task Force on Organ Transplantation have all condemned the proposal for such a market (Cherry 5). In regards to the moral or ethical implications suggested by body ownership, the government intends to masquerade as taking the high road, alleging that an organ market would be detrimental to society for reasons ranging from the destruction of community altruism to the commodification of the human body, which, ironically is exactly what happens when you deny people their right to do as they please with their bodies. By taking away one’s liberty to donate an organ, even for a profit, the government is taking away our option to save a life as well as denying the recipient a chance to do all they can to save their own lives. When the government becomes overly involved in health care, as is the case with refusing a for-profit organ market, they degrade our notion of free will and come dangerously close to acting as God. By refusing to acknowledge and allow for self-ownership of our bodies, including our right to live and do as we please as long as we do no harm to others, the government is, by extension, taking on ownership of all of our bodies.

Works Cited

Caplan, Arthur L. If I Were A Rich Man Could I Buy A Pancreas? : And Other Essays on The Ethics of Health Care. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 12 Oct. 2013.

Cherry, Mark J. Persons and Their Bodies: Rights, Responsibilities, Relationships. New York: Kluwer Academic, 2002. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 12 Oct. 2013.

Hoppe, Nils. Bioequity: Property and the Human Body. Farnham, Surrey, GBR: Ashgate.Ebook. Web. 12. Oct. 2013.

U.S. Institute of Medicine, et al. Society's Choices: Social and Ethical Decision Making in Biomedicine. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 12 Oct. 2013.