SINCE attention was called to the increased practice of organ trading in Guyana, more specifically the sale of kidneys, the burning question hones in on its consequences – a question of both legality and ethics.

The matter of legality is more simply answered, since Guyana has no laws that prevent organ trading.
While most countries have legislation that makes this practice illegal, there are still countries with no legal framework to prevent it, notably Iran, where kidney sales are regulated. The Charity Association for the Support of Kidney Patients (CASKP) and the Charity Foundation for Special Diseases (CFSD) control the trade of organs with the support of the government. The organisations match donors to recipients, setting up tests to ensure compatibility. The amounts paid to the donor vary in Iran, but the average figures are US$1,200 per kidney.
However, it has been argued that the Iranian system is in some ways coercive, as over 70 per cent of donors are considered poor by Iranian standards.
Herein lies the more difficult task of answering the ethics question – a dual tragedy. On one hand, there are people dying because they are not able to secure a donor match; and on the other, is the human rights debacle where the donor (a person in need of a payout in most cases) is misled on the nature of the surgical procedures and the recipient runs the risk of the “new” kidney failing,thereby causing death.
The debate considering the pros and cons of organ trading is not a black and white issue, but one that falls into grey territory.
Several years ago, prominent transplant surgeon Nadley Hakim at St. Mary’s Hospital in London pointed out that “this trade is going on anyway, why not have a controlled trade where if someone wants to donate a kidney for a particular price, that would be acceptable? If it is done safely, the donor will not suffer.”
The counter argument of concurring professionals is that the high demand for organs can result-in many cases is resulting-in the exploitation of poverty-stricken people by alluring them with financial gains – manifesting, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO), the fear that the line between selling organs and actually selling people is a rather fine one. Also, unlike other similar exploitative social situations, organ donation requires an invasive surgical procedure that has both physical and psychological implications.
In Guyana, the arguments proffered revolve around the fact that the fledgling kidney transplant can be ended if the trading of kidneys continues, as evidenced in several countries that were forced to take urgent action to preserve the standard of the transplant programme.
The shortage of organs, not only kidneys, is not a problem unique to Guyana, but this business of organ trading cannot be allowed to spiral into something beyond what it already is.
The matter of kidney sales is undoubtedly a thorny issue, making clear the need for both the Government and local medical professionals to have a firm stance on the matter.