The prevailing poverty and inequalities in the world Essay

The prevailing poverty and inequalities in the world - Essay Example More specifically, the Summary Report of the Social development: implementation of the outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly states (2006) that around the world some of "those working did not earn enough to lift themselves and their families above the $2-a-day poverty line" (p.3) In other words, it has quantified economic impoverishment as an earning below the amount of two USD. Hence those people who do not have opportunities to earn a minimum of 2 USD per day, as said to be in a state of poverty. According to the Summit Report of the United Nations General Assembly (2006), the approximate estimate of those living below the poverty-line globally, was about 1.4 billion. This is despite the fact that this 1.4 billion is a working force. According to the report "although the share of the $2-a-day working poor in total employment had decreased to 47.4 per cent in 2006, from almost 55 per cent in 1996" (p.3). Moreover, other categories of aged unemployed, women and children unemployed also fall into the category of 'people living below the poverty line, according to the Summit Report (2007, p. 2-3). The overall figures of the various figures show a m

Commercialization of organ transplants Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Commercialization of organ transplants - Essay Example This however has resulted in the emergence of a heated debate with some people supporting this move while others strongly opposing it. This scenario has been brought about by ethical issues which surround the entire process of the organ transplant and their respective sale. This paper will seeks to expound upon both side of the debate and highlight why commercialization of transplants should be discouraged. To start with, the organs under transplant are priceless and in most cases are donated as a humane gesture. They are a gift from our creator that were never commercially acquired. This however has been countered by the proponents of commercialization that being reliant on altruism to acquire these organs has resulted in failure to meet their high demand. This has resulted in the death of many patients who could only have survived from such procedures (Talbot, D’Allessandro & Muiesan 2010, p.31). In addition, commercialization has impeded the acts of donating cadavers and th e development of requisite programs. This has been countered by the claim that live transplants are only used to supplement the organs acquired from the cadavers. The difference that comes in between the two is about who is the actual beneficially after the organ transplant. ... cases of organ transplants which only unfairly brand them as rich harvesting zones (Kanniyakonil 2005, p.202) In addition the payment done for this organ is not reminiscent of their real value. This makes it appear as a cosmetic exercise, a well-calculated move to blind the vulnerable in the society from the reality. Attaching any value to the organs is an unethical process since they are invaluable. This has been countered by the claim that prohibition would only deny the poor the chance to make quick money for a noble cause. This would not in any way help their financial situation nor benefit the recipient; thus, the proponents claim it to be a win-win situation for both of them. Additionally, commercialization would only fuel instances of human trafficking which would put the donor in a risky situation. There also have been cases of where corrupt medical practitioners harvest not only one but all the organs leading to the demise of the donor. Furthermore, the conditions during the performance of the transplant would be very poor and further risk the life of the trafficked donor. To counter this, the proponents have made use of statistics that the risk attributed to kidney transplant is approximately 0.03%. Commercialization would be an insult to the financially unstable in the society. This would widen the gap of inequity since only the rich would afford these commercialized organs. This denial of organs accessibility would erode the principle of justice which is a basic ethical practice. The proponent of this cause however argues that the centralization of all organs donated would create equitable allocations based on social or medical need. This will bypass the notion that the very best goes to the highest bidder. Therefore, the sale of organs should not be