According to Epstein, it fairly allows buying and selling organs to save everyone’s life (66). This means that saving a life is more important than creating the economic gap between the rich and the poor. In addition, if it raises a financial issue which is a huge difference between poor people and rich people by making a market for the sale of an organ, the government imposes a tax on selling organ. Unlike Epstein, Childress regards as an issue that the disparity between wealth and poverty goes on widening. Childress says that “creating a market in organ procurement places poor and disadvantaged people at risk for coercion and exploitation” (68). It is unfair for those people to provide organs on organ transplants because it is possible that those people forcibly are robbed and sold their organs by the rich. Also, poor people likely sell their organs to rich people for money in society which the sale of organs for transplants is allowed. In other words, the gap between rich and poor spreads wider by legalizing the sale of organs. Therefore, it occurs economic issues between the rich and the …show more content…
Epstein notes that “the poor and the disadvantaged will not be sought after, let alone exploited, because they do not make candidates for organ transfer” (65). His view about organ transplants is subjective because there does not have the evidence of this part. Also, this proves that it allows us to discriminate in favor of the rich. However, Childress’ opinion on the sale of organs is clear to understand. Childress argues that the property of the current system of donation is made up of the relation with altruism, actions of ethical preference and fairness of others (72). Because of this, the current system of donation can provide organs for transplants. So, by changing from the current system of donation to an organ sales, human body goes on tool for money, it decreases altruism and the risk of coercion and exploitation is for the poor. As a result, it diminishes the number of organs in the market on the sale of organs. Because of these, Childress’s opinion of the sale of organs is more persuasive than Epstein’s