El gobierno británico quiere cambiar la ley de transplantes del Reino Unido. Existen 7000 personas esperando por un organo, y muchas veces no lo obtienen porque los familiares no aceptan donar el organo de un pariente fallecido. ¿Que propone el gobierno? Quitarle los organos a los fallecidos, a menos que hayan dicho en vida que NO querían que el gobierno hiciera eso... Afirmativa ficta se llama en derecho. Yo lo llamo abuso de confianza. El gobierno se abroga el derecho a la propiedad del cuerpo de sus ciudadanos muertos, a menos que ellos se hayan negado... en vida. Que el gobierno crea que es dueño de mi cuerpo solo premiría que considera que somos sus propiedades, es decir, sus esclavos. Seguramente no tardará en llegar este esquema a México...
Geoffrey Alderman propone en The Guardian una interesante alternativa: no hay suficientes organos para miles de enfermos, entonces ¿por qué no se los vendemos al gobierno? El mercado no sería negro, sino legal y regulado. Los que vendan sus organos obtienen un pago que el gobierno da - para impedir un mercado en base a subastas - y los enfermos salvan sus vidas. Cito a Alderman:
"My organs are my property, and if I wish to sell one of them (say a kidney, or a piece of my liver) while I am alive, or authorise my executors to sell them when I die, that is - or should be - my business and no one else's. The argument against the sale of organs - especially kidneys - is often made that the poor would be exploited if this were permitted. Leaving aside the fact that society has no right to prohibit the poor from selling something that is theirs, may I point out that the poor are exploited by loan sharks? But we do not prohibit money lending. We regulate it. And so it should and could be with organ donation. The state, for instance, could buy organs from the living and the deceased, and store them in an organ bank; to be used as medical experts direct to save the lives of persons waiting for transplant surgery. As for the argument that the donation of an organ should ideally be an act of altruism, I agree. But the quality of that act is not vitiated at all simply because the donor is paid.
The prohibition of the buying and selling of organs for transplant was not merely immoral. It has in fact led to increased loss of life. The law intemperately rushed through parliament 19 years ago urgently needs to be replaced by a sensible regulatory system that has at its heart the welfare of both donors and recipients, rather than the expression of ill-informed pseudo-moral indignation."
La estricta donación de organos hemos visto no alcanza para salvar a miles de enfermos. Es hora de pensar nuevas ideas.
Geoffrey Alderman propone en The Guardian una interesante alternativa: no hay suficientes organos para miles de enfermos, entonces ¿por qué no se los vendemos al gobierno? El mercado no sería negro, sino legal y regulado. Los que vendan sus organos obtienen un pago que el gobierno da - para impedir un mercado en base a subastas - y los enfermos salvan sus vidas. Cito a Alderman:
"My organs are my property, and if I wish to sell one of them (say a kidney, or a piece of my liver) while I am alive, or authorise my executors to sell them when I die, that is - or should be - my business and no one else's. The argument against the sale of organs - especially kidneys - is often made that the poor would be exploited if this were permitted. Leaving aside the fact that society has no right to prohibit the poor from selling something that is theirs, may I point out that the poor are exploited by loan sharks? But we do not prohibit money lending. We regulate it. And so it should and could be with organ donation. The state, for instance, could buy organs from the living and the deceased, and store them in an organ bank; to be used as medical experts direct to save the lives of persons waiting for transplant surgery. As for the argument that the donation of an organ should ideally be an act of altruism, I agree. But the quality of that act is not vitiated at all simply because the donor is paid.
The prohibition of the buying and selling of organs for transplant was not merely immoral. It has in fact led to increased loss of life. The law intemperately rushed through parliament 19 years ago urgently needs to be replaced by a sensible regulatory system that has at its heart the welfare of both donors and recipients, rather than the expression of ill-informed pseudo-moral indignation."
La estricta donación de organos hemos visto no alcanza para salvar a miles de enfermos. Es hora de pensar nuevas ideas.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario