The sale of the organs of executed prisoners presents a situation raising many issues about the morality (or lack thereof) of the people involved. The Chinese military had been executing convicted criminals and then selling their organs to people that needed transplants. Despite the fact that their laws allow for execution of criminals, selling their organs is wrong and should not be used as a source of finances. The institution of the military should be based on honesty and ethical behavior and the leaders of the Chinese military should have refused to allow any such practices to be carried out.
As a medical practitioner, Dr. Ronald Gutman, who was serving as an advisor to the International Transplantation Society and who spoke with the investigators telling them that some doctors knew about the Chinese military’s sale of kidneys of executed prisoners had a moral responsibility to inform authorities about such allegations. Since he informed the ABC investigative crew about it, he did fulfil his moral obligation and played his part in letting the world know about the illegal practice.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Sale of Organs: Critical Essay".
ABC as a media entity engaged in gathering and disseminating news also had a moral obligation to inform the world about what the Chinese military was doing. Though carrying out this investigation which had the potential to anger the Chinese military and government and even possibly spark a diplomatic row, the crew risked their own safety and unearthed something that even the American government had denied knowledge of for years. They therefore fully met their moral obligation in doing this.
The Chinese government definitely knew about these activities and kept quiet about it while the American government most probably knew about it. Both governments had a moral obligation to act and stop the sale of these organs but none did making them accomplices in these crimes. While the Chinese argued that prisoners gave consent for their organs to be harvested, Dr. Gutman rightly points out that this is just a farce because if any such documents are provided, the prisoners probably signed them under duress.
The doctors who were involved in the transplants, the W.R. Grace Company and Dr. and Mrs. Dye also had a moral obligation to inform authorities about the trade in human organs. However, they all failed to do this except for Dr. Joe Wei Chang who risked his life to expose this. Harry Wu who had spent many years in detention and knew about this trade also had a moral obligation to inform the public about these acts and he risked his life to smuggle the information and give it to ABC.
The governments of China, the doctors who performed the transplants and the Chinese military therefore all failed to fulfil their moral obligations and allowed and illegal organ trade to thrive.
The obligation doctors have to save lives comes into conflict when the means to saving this life is unethical. The same applies to the families of the patients who would want to see their loved ones healthy but have to use an illegal means to do so. To go against an institution like the Chinese military is to risk one’s life or freedom and even those of people close to them. Should the whistleblowers save their own lives and let an illegality continue or should they risk everything and expose criminals? Such ideals are what come into conflict when one is faced with such situations.
Given the consequences, the best outcome for this situation would have been to shut down the organ trade and prosecute those involved in it. People who need transplants should get them but not from people who are executed and their organs harvested and certainly not from an organ trade benefitting some people. Organ donors should be people who make that decision when not under any pressure and they should not be people that are deliberately executed for the sake of their organs.
Relationship between critical thinking and ethics
Ethics are influence by critical thinking because the process through which people decide what course of action to take in any given situation. Critical thinking involves analysis and consequently a decision on what is proper and what is not (Melillo 2010). Through critical thinking, people come to an understanding of their situations and thus can apply ethics to the said situation. People who take the path of a critical thinking are able to develop mental processes and evaluations that ultimately enable them to determine their ethical standards. Critical thinking helps people to remove any variables in a situation and to see the truth for what it is enabling them to take the ethical route.
